I've Been Encouraged Before...
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 13, 2007 - 11:47pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: independent, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
Hi there all, just thought I'd bring this article up for its own comment thread. Have at it.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
A world without oil
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.
However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.
According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.
Good on you ODAC! http://www.odac-info.org/
This got picked up on Drudge Report.
Not exactly USA today, but a lot of new folks will be learning about peak oil for the first time...
Such short memories. USA Today has already covered PO, about 20 months ago.
Debate Brews: Has Oil Production Peaked?
An excerpt:
Not to mention, this was on the front page. I even have a copy and scanned it in.
http://www.updebate.org/phpBB2/album_pics/89.jpg
The exact same thing that happened after that article will happen after this one: Nothing.
People don't want to know, or they think "someone will think of something". Face it folks, we're on our own here. Collapse is going to happen fast, and the public will panic and run amok. Make your plans based on that, don't expect a soft landing.
Its a grand piece, well done the INDEPENDENT. I have been badgering David Smith (the Sunday Times economic editor) about PO - he is extremely dismissive, but maybe this piece will finally make him think.
On a related note is it possible that Greenspan has been reading the Oildrum?
All of a sudden he is on to the brewing Mexican crisis:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/13/news/international/bc.usa.economy.greens...
One of the great things about this site is that you get to see and hear about these problems way before the mainstream (in the same way as RR developed the petrol run up in the US several months before it happened).
So mighty plaudits to all those who have been banging the Mexican drum (Westexas etc etc - you know who you are).
I also wrote to David Smith - he believes CERA and OPEC. He would be extremely surprised if production did not increase as EIA predict. TOD are amateurs and doom-mongers, therefore no credibility.
I find his sort of arrogance irritating, but the fact that he is influential makes things worse. He does not have a good grasp of energy detail, but then with attitudes like his, how could he?
I have stopped bothering to write to him.
Heh, Heh, he must of gotten sick of Peakists over the last 2 years.
The Independent Story (for all its technical faults) is basically a gauntlet. A challenge to the BP Statistical review.
Its out now, and that is something.
Maybe time for some serious media discourse now.
Headline was a bit grabby, but thats what headlines are supposed to do. It grabbed everybody at work today.
He might believe CERA and OPEC (while ignoring CERA's complete and utter blunder on the natural gas production peak in the US). But if you notice CERA (Yergin, in particular) are off on a biofuels/ethanol jag and others like Lynch (SEER) have been pretty quiet (seems like their "back to $30/barrel by the end of 2004" didn't quite work out).
What's really interesting is that some "doubters" keep arguing the fact that the 1997 Science artcle by Campbell and Laherrere the graphic shows a peak occurring in 2004 (although the article says sometime before 2010) and that Campbell was "wrong," once again.
They have a little difficulty when I point out the peak production for oil + condensate is the month of May 2005 (with December 2005 coming in a very close second) and according to my calendar it's now June 2007. So, what does it matter that the article shows a possible peak in 2004 and it occurred in 2005? Let the economists find the oil.
As I point out, there is a very easy way to prove that peak production has not occurred...six consecutive months of production of crude and condensate greater than 74.2 million BPD.
As for the EIA, the other day I finally got around to running a Hubbert Linearization on the EIA's reference case (which only goes to 2035), That curve takes a complete bender from the current H-L curve(since 1982) that is "aimed" at 2200 GB URR, and heads off "aimed" (2006-2035) at 4400 GB URR.
But if Smith believes the EIA, then he must also believe in the "collapse" that the EIA has routinely shown in their curves once the peak arrives (since the total area under the curve constrains the total production and the EIA has selected a R/P of 10 after the peak) as they have attempted to dismiss the possibility of a near-term peak. If Smith thinks that a drop of 55 MMBPD over a five year period is no problem, then he might wish to explain how thas going to be "no problem."
It's totally understandable. Why bother people with a problem that they (and you, as the responsible reporting agency) are unprepared to address.
Re: Mexico
The key point about Mexico today is that it is a real life example of the Export Land Model (ELM) in action. Based on Pemex data from 1/06 to 4/07, we observed the following:
And once again, the various discussions down the thread of various world crude oil decline rates ignored the critical aspect of the ELM. Consider the following graph of US oil production, versus petroleum imports and consumption: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_4.pdf
We see the gradual increase in crude oil production from 1950 on, the peak in 1970, a slight rebound because of Prudhoe Bay and then the decline resumes. Key Point: During the entire time period that this graph shows, the US was a net importer. Or let me put it this way, if the US were the sole source of crude oil exports for the world, world crude oil exports would have ceased around 1950.
Consider another real life case history.
Based on EIA data, we observed the following for the UK from 2000 to 2005:
I think that almost everyone--including yours truly--is underestimating the deadly effect on the world industrial of economy of the ELM.
I just picked it up off of http://www.attytood.com/. This article seems to be moving fast. If it spreads like wildfire on the blogs, it may get picked up in the U.S. MSM in about 2 weeks. :)
I particularly thought this quote from BP’s chief economist was sweet:
Followed further down by this quote:
Kind of sums it up.
Hmmmm. Too bad it's just above the "UFO Sighting in Salt Lake City?" lead.
Campbell and the people of ASPO recently favored a model that forecasts a world peak production of crude + liquids in 2010. The forecast might be adjusted if more data will be made public.
During 2004 ASPO predicted oil production might peak in the year 2007.
http://www.answers.com/topic/alex-kuhlman
world peak production of crude + liquids in 2010
The ASPO table gives an all liquids peak date of 2011, but doesn't give an amount. They do however predict 90 Mbpd for 2010, declining to 40 Mbpd by 2050. This is only -1.4% a year (straight line). (ASPO).
I agree with Roger Conner below, this is not "a world without oil". Not yet.
Why? Some people saw something they can't explain.
Hello TODers,
It appears the US MSM and Iron Triangle is failing the huddled masses: just checked Yahoo, NYT, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and MSN homepages for this news--> nothing so far! Yet we know they monitor the Drudge Report and most likely read The Independent too.
By the way: Kudos for ODAC for getting this into the British Press!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Prof Goose,
I submit this on REDDIT and nothing happens when I check their new list--what gives? Are we being censored?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Yes, it seems that is the case. It has been for about a month (which is why I quit asking people to do it--futile gesture).
It's only when different people with different upmodding histories, etc., reddit and digg for us that it really matters any more.
Oh well. Not much to be done on that other than complain, which I encourage you to do. :)
I don't think we are being censored per say. Both digg and reddit have instituted new rules to keep people from gaming the system.
It makes sense, you want the opinions from the broader community. A highly vocal minority would otherwise skew the voting results.
And you have to admit our message isn't very popular with those online communities. And there are so many Paris Hilton and iPhone stories that need attention.
Besides have you ever read any of the comments our stories get? The ignorance is stunning.
The direct link to The Independent is on digg and on reddit . These communities prefer the direct link to the original article.
Agreed. In fact, it really irritates them, when you post a link to a blog entry about an article, rather than to the article itself. Unless you have a weighty response or critique to the article, they see it as useless blogwhoring.
This is a pretty big deal to get a front-page story like that.
Now I have something to show to my "doubter" friends.
Folks, I'm sorry to report this but right now the server hosting the Independent is down:
A few other mainstream PO articles, OK to very good, useful for sceptics:
National Geographic: "Humanity's way of life is on a collision course with geology—with the stark fact that the Earth holds a finite supply of oil. The flood of crude from fields around the world will ultimately top out, then dwindle." link
Michael T Klare in the Eng. version of Le Monde Diplomatique: link
Yves Cochet in Le Monde (English Translation) link
Robert Semple in the New York Times (via Energy Bulletin) link
Warren Brown in the Washington Post link
Dan Neill in the Los Angeles Times (mostly about Kunstler, calls Gore a candy assed optimist!) link
Matt Crenson in the San Francisco Chronicle (via Energy Bull.) link
=======
Business Week: Ethanol, a tragedy in 3 acts. link
Here's another one
Petrol problems about peak oil, not snake oil
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/petrol-problems-about-peak-oil-not...
For those having problems accessing the Independent's server I've uploaded a pdf of a World Without Oil onto the TOD server which you can download here.
Thanks Euan for the link.
I hate to make a Pitt the Elder type of comment (although I DO love his logic exercises:-) Here's where I'll disagree with the article:
1) This is opinion stated as fact.
2) Price could and will do anything the markets can agree upon. Fundamentals are only a partial concern.
3) A rise in price, as long as it's not a price "shock" will (see McKillop) probably continue to heat up the world economy and the US's debt-driven economic expansion. The German economy, for instance (a country completely dependant on oil imports), is beginning to expand significantly probably BECAUSE of high oil prices - while exporting industrial machinery etc is going gang-busters. And where are those oil$s going? Has anyone noticed that the DAX went from ca. 2,200 in 2003 to now 7,770?
A recession will probably follow the inability to get gasoline at the pump, the inability to do business/ to transport food because of the lack of supplies..
At the end of the book Twighlight in the desert, Matt Simmons actually comes to similar conclusions as yourself.
Marco.
That's not the part of the article that irritated me. The problematic part was where they repeated several claims that are known to be wrong:
1) "Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil."
- Fertilizers require a hydrogen source for Haber-Bosch, and hence are made with natural gas. Oil has very little to do with it.
2) "The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil."
- Manufacturing a car requires the energy equivalent of 20 barrels of oil, not 20 barrels of actual oil. The link on latoc underpinning this claim shows pretty clearly that it's BOE, and that actual oil is only about 5-10% of the total.
3) "Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil."
- Aluminum relies on heat for the smelting process, and that heat is usually generated by electricity. Again, oil has very little to do with it.
Why do I point this out? Two reasons:
Credibility is your friend; promulgating myths like these? Not so much.
Please re-read the aluminum smelting link you posted. If heat was the important part of the process, electricity would not be used as there are more cost effective ways of heating things up. Rather, electricity is required for the electrochemical reduction of alumina to aluminum metal.
The link I posted says nothing about that; however, it also does not say anything about the electricity being used to produce heat, as I had assumed. A little googling isn't clearing this up one way or the other, so it's entirely possible that you're right.
However, that's beside the point, which is that oil is not heavily involved in the process. (Interestingly, more than half of the world's aluminum is produced via hydro power.)
True, the article doesn't give the details. Basically, aluminum oxide is dissolved in molten fluoride salt at 1,000 °C (hence the need for heat). Current is passed between two carbon electrodes (hence the need for the electricity). Aluminum ions are reduced to the metal at one electrode (and it sinks to the bottom for separation) and oxygen anions give up their electrons and react with the other electrode (basically the reaction vessel) to form CO2. For each pound of aluminum, the process requires nearly a half pound of carbon and produces almost 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, plus some fluorocarbons.
There's a reason that the Pacific Northwest has smelted a lot of aluminum, and cheap electricity from hydro is it. You can read the history of it here.
Best hopes for recycling more aluminum.
Guess I didn't read the whole article, must admit..
But it's good to hear your reply too:-)
Cheers, Dom
Munich
Folks, do be careful...if you send your “doubter” friends down this path, and I am not going to even try to be delicate here, you will make the whole cause look like a bunch of kooks.
First, on this post, we read from Prof. Goose the prhrases almost back to back to back...
“A world without oil”
“start to run out”
“the end of oil”
If did not know better, (and I am assuming I know better) I would think that CERA must have planted this to set up a strawman “peak oil” to knock down.
I MUST ask, does anyone, anywhere, believe there will be “a world without oil” in our lifetime, or in the lifetime of our children, EVEN if you believe in impending Peak Oil?
If so, and you have been registered here for anything over 30 days, then TOD would have to be considered an absolute failure as a “Peak Oil” educational tool.
Does anyone belive that peak oil is about “running out” of oil? And using the phrase “start to run out” is fudging, because we “started to run out” the day we drilled our first barrel. Are we now so desperate for attention that we are disavowing the first law of “Peak” pedagogy that peak is not about “running out?
“The end of oil” is a bit different, in that we could mean the end of oil as a growing decisive energy source in the near future, being replaced and pushed aside by post fossil fuel energy supply.
I think it is an error to dismiss BenjaminCole’s points so sneeringly. It is easy to say present evidence as strong as “Stuart, Robert, and many others” (that really should be “a few others” by the way, as Stuart and Robert are in pretty exclusive company), and it has been done on forums other than TOD.
However, if a post showing the advances in alternative energy technology is run on TOD (as the recent extraordinary and well done piece on concentrating solar), they literally dozens of posts are spent trying to slander the advances made, and distracting with more “dieoff” and “Mad Max” fascination.
If by the end of oil we mean what the other phrases above indicate, that we will literally be out of oil in our lifetime, please try to avoid making an azz of yourself spreading this tale, you will be cut to shreds by those wanting to discredit anyone interested in the VERY real and VERY serious issues of oil depletion, and energy security.
Let’s go back up this very string of posts for evidence:
In a post by rainsong is included the most famous of graph icons of the Peak Oil movement, the “ASPO” depletion model. This is one of the darkest scenario models, indicating peak about 2010 (as rainsong indicates, this is a modification, the model used to be even darker, but the past peak date has come and gone)
Note that the world will still be producing as much oil in about 2040 as it did at anytime up to the 1970. And this according to the dark model of the ASPO and Colin Campbell, known to the world as “doomers.”
Now that would be a shock to the world, to have to come back to 1970 levels of consumption, and given the rising world population (which may slowdown in rise over the next few decades but will still be on a rising glidepath), without mitigation, that drop in production could be deadly for many, many human beings.
But it will most CERTAINLY NOT be the “end of oil”, “running out of oil” or “a world without oil”. To make such assertions is fantastical on the face of it. Totally irresponsible.
But it meshes perfectly with some of the posts that claim there will not be enough oil and gas left in only a few years to build windmills, extract metals, manufacture solar panels, or build the batteries and motors for hybrid cars. Surely it must be realized how much damage to the peak oil and oil and gas depletion argument is done with these types of assertions. It is realized, isn’t it?
It is very sad, because the reason some of us don’t just get disgusted and stop coming is because of the really great posts that are still allowed to be seen here, the above mentioned piece on concentrating solar, the Jerome’A Paris article on wind energy finance, Robert Rapier’s articles on the flaws in ethanol, and discussion of other possibilities including bio-butanol and celuosic alcohol, and the perspective altering post by Khebab on “one cubic mile of oil a year for the world”, not to mention the great work on the Saudi Arabian oilfields.
These make it worth it.
I have to say, in this string, as far a post that leads to further thought, BenCole’s is the jewel in the crown. It may lack deep mathematical modeling, but compared to “running out of oil”, “the end of oil”, and “a world without oil” as scientific observations, it is absolute high calculus! :-)
Take the easy dismissal as flattery Ben, you’ve caused them just that glimmer of doubt (and it will stay with any thinking person, I know from experience, Khebab accidently put one on me), but yes, keep working on the mathematical rigor!
Roger Conner
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Actually it should be "Now that would be a shock to the world, to have to come back to 1970 levels of
consumptionproduction"It seems a nitpick I know. Perhaps you just mistyped. But it has a very profound impact.
By 2040 using UN pop growth numbers and postulating a very small energy production decline the per capita energy consumption for the world will be at pre-industrial levels. Circa 1900 levels.
So yes "
withouteven with mitigation, that drop in productioncouldwill be deadly for many, many human beings."Rethin,
While I take your point, and am familiar with the logical basis from which you are working, I must tell you, and this I hope will not be taken as disrespect to you (my posts here at TOD and in other places going far back have always been consistant on this:
I do not in any way accept the ideas behind the so called "olduvai theory".
I have written several long posts on my differences wtih the theory, the central one being that I do not accept oil and gas consumption as any measure of wealth, but much more often, as a measure of waste and ignorant design and engineering.
I feel and have long felt that the "back to the stone age" portrayal of the post fossil fuel dominant era is utterly simplistic, non-scientific, and completely impossible to support with evidence, and that the portrayal of the future as given in descriptions and illustrations (some of which are outright farcical) by olduvai theory supporters has done more to discredit real concern regarding energy depletion (which, unlike olduvai descent, is a real and pressing concern) than the cornucopians or the CERA type flacks could ever do.
I won't argue the olduvai theory per se here, having done so in long posts many times, and do not want to spend great time and effort on it in a marginal string of posts which will soon be dead.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I wasn't arguing Olduvai theory here. I was just pointing out that a 1970's level of production in 2040 is a very different thing than 1970's level of consumption in 2040.
There will be much less energy per capita in 2040. Whether or not this means the end of industrialized civilization isn't really relevant to this thread. But when I mean much less, I mean very very much less.
You're post confused production and consumption. I just wanted to illustrate the difference.
BTW we are at the same level of consuption per capita as we were in 1979. This despite nearly 30 years of technological advances.
"This despite.."
Or do you mean, "this because of.." technology..
Same level of consumption, but the economy (don't know about the world economy) at leat in the US is twice as large! Isn't that a miracle, proof that we have learned our lessons, that we've come a long way since then?
I'm afraid the cornucopians must be right. Right???
Please tell me that the cornucopians are right!!
PeakPlus asks,
"I'm afraid the cornucopians must be right. Right???
Please tell me that the cornucopians are right!!"
No, the cornucopians are not right, but we have some pretty damm good technicians! And we could have had more great ones had our educational system not went to helll in a handbasket....
Europe and Japan has also accomplished similiar efficiencies....and had we not taken off on a sudden wierd love affair with 6000 pound all wheel drive hyked in the air trucks, we would be consuming back at 1970 levels already, and putting the spare change into AMERICAN INVESTMENT instead of the vaults of overseas "princes". Think about how strong our dollar would have been then.
But what stupidity givith, stupidity takes away....the giant truck fad is ending, and efficiencies are coming to the ones that will be sold new... and when it does we could see oil demand collapse with a heavy thud...what a wonderful sound! (Just hedge your bets if your betting on oil price! :-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
I assume you speak of the US?
RE: Our per capita level consumption.
Since we have exported alot of manufacturing there should be some addition for the oil used by China. I see alot of petroleum based products from there sold here.
I question if we are comparing apples and oranges by comparing 1979 and todays per capita comsumption.
That graph above (up to 2006) was from the BP statistical review. It was for world per capita energy use, not just the US.
I have the same data for the US, but not on hand. I can post it tomorrow if you'd like. (it's late here in Japan)