NYT says peak oil "almost certainly correct"
Posted by Stuart Staniford on March 1, 2006 - 3:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: climate change, global warming, hubbert peak, peak oil [list all tags]
Was browsing the NYT on a short break from work tonight when I was amazed to discover a long op-ed by Robert Semple Jr, associate editor of the Times Editorial Board, on peak oil. Unfortunately, it's behind the Times Select paywall, so the rest of you will have to make do with a few fair use quotations:
When President Bush declared in his 2006 State of the Union address that America must cure its "addiction to oil," he framed his case largely in terms of national security -- the need to liberate the country from of its dependence on volatile and in some cases hostile nations for much of its energy. He failed to mention two other good reasons to sober up. Both are at least as pressing as national security. One is global warming...
The second reason is just as unsettling, and is only starting to get the attention it deserves. The Age of Oil -- 100-plus years of astonishing economic growth made possible by cheap, abundant oil -- could be ending without our really being aware of it. Oil is a finite commodity. At some point even the vast reservoirs of Saudi Arabia will run dry. But before that happens there will come a day when oil production "peaks," when demand overtakes supply (and never looks back), resulting in large and possibly catastrophic price increases that could make today's $60-a-barrel oil look like chump change. Unless, of course, we begin to develop substitutes for oil. Or begin to live more abstemiously. Or both. The concept of peak oil has not been widely written about. But people are talking about it now. It deserves a careful look -- largely because it is almost certainly correct.
So there you have it. The NYT editorial board is on record that peak oil is "almost certainly correct". They are a little fuzzy on the timing still:
When will oil peak? At least one maverick geologist says it already has. Others say 10 years from now. A few actually say never. The latest official projections from the Energy Information Administration put the peak at 2037, or 2047 -- depending, of course, on how much of the stuff is out there and how fast we intend to use it up. But even that relatively late date does not give us much time to adjust to a world without cheap, abundant oil.But hey, let's give them another six months: they'll almost certainly catch up. Indeed one striking feature of the editorial was it quoted all the right experts and books - they've clearly been doing their homework.
So, our respectability just went up about six notches...
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I'm actually gearing down my tech equipment in light of Deffeye's "stone age by 2025" prediction. I've been practicing using chalk to draw hubbert curves on the sidewalk in front of my apartment in preparation for the time when I do my site updates on the wall of a cave.
Best,
Matt
Don't forget fire by friction, chipping flint into spearpoints, small animals snares, berry wine, and bark canoes.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
All the news that's fit to suppress and delay before printing-- Your NYT serving you and your community.
Wonder what Uncle Tom Friedman will say about all this?
Matt discusses an obscure reference from Jeff Gerth [of the NYT], to an old article by Seymour Hersh, published in the NYT on March 4,1979 that reviewed the 1974 closed Senate Hearings done in "Executive Session". The Senators grilled some of the World's top oil executives. All info essentially buried because the world was riveted on Nixon's Watergate. I am convinced the top NYT editors have kept this 'Greatest Story Never Told' buried till just recently.
Same with the Oil companies: Ever since Hubbert's Bombshell was confirmed in early '70s--Don't you think they thought about the World's Peak? They could have started WillYouJoinUs.com a long time ago! At the very least, they could have asked the Press to help get the word out.
Pres. Carter knew what was up, and he tried to get all Americans onboard. Reagan quickly put the kibosh to that idea.
I feel that if all the independents like Campbell, Laherre, Simmons, Deffeyes, et al, had not diligently dug for years, most of what we know now would still be buried. My two cents.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
<rant>
Re: "deserve all the acclaim they can get..."
Of course they do. Not the point. Matt Savinar has been outfront for a long time now. Defcon 1.
Maybe it's just ego, but when we do this stuff at TOD, I like to see it recognized for its quality in addition to what other good websites have provided in taking the lead in the past.... I know that TOD is relatively new in the world but still we've been around for a while now.
I think TOD offers up a valuable, honest and often technical kind of discussion that can not be found almost anywhere else on the web about peak oil. End of story. If some people (including the NY Times) can't figure that out, then they are just mediocre journalists. I believe--though I can't prove it--that our regular readers include Heinberg, Kunstler, Pickens, Raintree and many other "influential people" who lurk here but don't contribute. When I introduced myself to the local Boulder Relocalization Group, all I had to say was "Hi, I'm Dave from The Oil Drum". They knew who I was. They read (and still do) the website everyday. And many people who I met at ASPO-USA in Denver back in November read it too. Jesus, at this point Stuart is actually getting famous for the interesting, obscure but very illuminating posts he does. Hell, I even get the occasional e-mail.
Point is, I don't like it that TOD is neglected by some guy at the NY Times because he hasn't done his homework. Screw him.
</rant>
Relax. Whenever I go gasoline syphoning, I scrawl "The Oil Drum was here." onto the bumbers. So the time when the Times links to your site in a tiny sidebar will come sooner than later.
Thus far, my site has only gotten three visits from the Times link and two of those were from me testing the link.
Best,
Matt
No need to worry about TOD exposure. This site is so cross linked to the other sites that people will get here as a second or third link. The people that are inquisitive and scientific minded will stay and browse the details. The others will go back to the other sites for an easy summary of what they should do.
You can't force people to accept hard truths, only expose them to it.
You have done your part well. Give yourself a pat on the back and wait for the knowledge stored here to filter out.
Not this hombre. I'm here solely to increase my inclusive fitness.
BEst,
Matt
Is it because the site is so good that other people should read it thus making their lives better by better preparing for post peak?
Is it that you want more posters here to learn more stuff from?
Is it that TOD readers are somehow cooler?
Does it generate a 'tribal algorithm' feel-good camaraderie like a fraternity, or a club, or a sports team might?
Something else?
Any reason is valid, if we choose to feel that way, its because we like it, which is OK. Just interesting to think about the 'why' sometimes.
Hm, sounds like one of those DUETs (Deep Universal Eternal Truths) that Don Sailorman is always flogging ;)-
http://select.nytimes.com/membercenter/ts_extraform.html
Although, I guess you have to have Times Select to do it.
But if anybody here is looking to build a mass movement on a process that, even in the best case scenario, promises the deaths of billions due to war, starvation, and global wide cascading systems failures, you're brain has picked the wrong issue on which to pursue its Machiavellian desires.
This ain't the issue that is going to make you famous beyond a very tiny niche of people who attend relocalization meetings and perhaps the occassional billionaire Texas investor.
You're not going to get rich, famous, or be better liked as a result of being able to explain how cascading systems failures now all but guarantee catastrophe. One of the reasons I've largely stopped giving public talks about this (unless I'm getting paid) is that the message boils dow to this:
"Hey folks, the bad news is 3-to-6 billion of us are going to die. The good news is this is a great opportunity to start that vegetable garden you've always wanted!"
If you convey the facts honestly, that's what ends up being the message, even if you don't state it directly. So it's not the issue on which to pin your hopes at being popular.
I hope that isn't taken the wrong way.
Right now, I posit that less than 1 out of 100 people could explain to you what "peak oil" is. I doubt it will EVER get to beyond 2-to-3 out of 100. People are just going to blame their favorite scapegoat as the shit hits the fan. That's what millions of years of evolution has produced, sadly. In the past, we'd go kill somebody and take their stuff. That's pretty much how we're going to attempt to solve this too.
Best,
Matt
That's my point. If they mentioned TOD but not me I would have been upset too. But I have a lot of my social and financial capital invested in this. So my thinking would be:
"if they didn't mention me, I might be doing something wrong and if I am doing something wrong, book/dvd/newsletter purchases are going to drop and then my chances of purchasing the off-the-grid Ecobunker with the harem on some tropical island are shot to shit."
Most folks, including the posters here and elswhere are not thinking along these lines. They aren't selling anything and/or they are posting anonymously so they stand to gain no social capital from this in the real world.
So if you're doing just for the heck of it, then great. I post on some baseball boards even though I don't stand to gain socially or finanically from it. But if, in the back of my head, I was I'd need to reevaluate my strategies for inclusive fitness.
If you're doing in hopes of expanding your territory beyond a tiny niche of society, then maybe there are other issues which would provide a higher personal EROEI if that makes sense.
It's a Machiavellian way of looking at things, but the world's a Machiavellian place.
BEst,
Matt
If I want to read your stuff I can go to your web site. I prefer to read the insightful analyses of Dave, Stuart, HO, PG and the many commenters here. TOD is consistently one of the highest quality blog discussion boards I have found. I am worried that if you come here peddling your LATOC scenarios that TOD will fall into the same navel-gazing disasturbation that afflicts so many Peak Oil sites, especially yours. If you are looking for new victims to infect with your message of despair and hopelessness, I hope you will look elsewhere.
]. Population growth will be checked, one way or another, because we are running through our all our resources like a crack-addict on payday. Even strong conservation measures cannot win against our burgeoning mouths, faces, and grabbing hands.
Yet perhaps peak fossil fuels will be the impetus we need to get our sustainable house in order, but I stronly fear our momentum has already sent us past the point of no return(in terms of climate change, at the very least).
Well this chimp could back to his corner of the cage and start flinging monkey poo at you as you seem to be doing here. Fortunately, I have evolved past the territorial instincts you express here.
I want you to notice something: there are alpha males on TOD such as Stuart, PG, Dave, West Texas, and others. You, my friend, are at best a beta. Why is that?
Well, the alpha's like Stuart understand that a bit of sparring between among the alpha's is good for the overall management of the cage and the health of whole chimp clan. The sparring done here harpens the instincts for when we do battle with the cornucopian chimps who would like to invade our territory and take our females.
Your inability to understand this is why I suspect will remain a a beta for the rest of your days.
True alphas can spar to sharpen their skills without actually attacking each other. It's actually somewhat of cooperative and rather sophisticated exercise when you think about it.
Ask the alpha males here at the TOD (PG) and they will tell you I routinely toss leafy branches (links to TOD stoires) to them from my side of the cage. If the alpha's subscribed to your thinking, I'd stay on my side of the cage and they'd stay on their side. That, in the end, would lower our ability to defend against the cornacopian chimps who we now have on the run as evidenced by the recent NY Times article. Soon, we shall have their females too.
Of the 46 posts, I think probably 30 of those were in one thread where I and the alpha Stuart sparred over whether our predicament will descend into a giant contest of global poo-flinging or transition into more cooparative cage management. If anything, I suspect that attracted more chimps to this side of the cage as everybody likes to see a bit of sparring between alpha-males.
The other posts were me cracking jokes, so I don't see how that plays into your accusations.
Remember Halfin: the chimp who flings monkey poo at his fellow chimps ends up with poo all over him.
Anyways, have fun being a beta!
Best,
Matt
You've got my vote for quote of the year Matt. I suggest selling T-shirts and coffee mugs with the above words in neon font.
"In the past, we'd go kill somebody and take their stuff."
Yes, though we can be quite a cooperative species - the catch is that our Enviroment of Evolutionary Adaptedness was that of small groups, where, like the TV show Cheers, everyone knew your name. Once populations go beyond that, the trouble really begins.
We're FANTASTIC at cooperating within our own tribe in order to kill other tribes
That's Human History 101 for you. (Tragically)
I supposse this can be channelled into positive action. Mabye we could cooperate between TOD, LATOC, Po.com and do a board invasion of some cornocopian discussion board.
Best,
Matt
I started a peak oil site back in October 2003 (if you do a Spanish language search for "peak oil", Crisis Energética would come in first position). I am a technical journalist (IT) and I did that because I always have felt the need of communicating with others, specially when there's something important to say. In our forums, we have a thread called "New users, introduce yourselves here", almost everyone contributing to that thread there thanks the founders and users of the site saying things like "I was feeling alone, I thought I was nuts!, I needed to find people with the same concerns as yours". Of course it helps being the largest peak oil site in Spanish (English continues to be a barrier for a lot of Spanish Internet users).
Our visitors base is smaller than TOD or LATOC (btw, thanks again Mat, you're sending us lots of users), but our site has, as today, 1829 registered users (the majority of them doesn't contribute, but I suppose they find useful to receive the daily digest), and our forums have already passed the 20K messages mark.
I know we could do "better" than that, in the sense of getting more traffic and visitors (we hover between 2k and 4,5k unique daily users), but we have chosen not to go over the board with the issue (being a self taught journalist helps a bit also). Before starting the site, I went to see a geology professor from my local university, he's the only Spanish member of ASPO, and a frequent contributor to the main Spanish newspapers (when they let him). He gave me a very good advise, very similar to something I have read today here at TOD (thanks NC):
So that's the way we do it, perhaps is slower, but the people who finally come aboard and contribute are the best ones. And I think TOD is that kind of site also (well, I think TOD surpasses us in many aspects!).
Lucky I. Just another million bucks today.
Thank you for a good job.
Andrei.
So, Andrei, as a Russian oil industry 'insider', can you give us any more information about the state of Russian oil production now and in the near-term future?
It's be interesting to see how the NY Times article increases traffic on the PO sites. Will this be an inflection point?
Thank about it this way: I get the task of filtering out the crazies.
Best,
Matt
If it's not listed, it must have been intentionally left out. Maybe they didn't want links that were too scientific/technical.
- ASPO - peakoil.net
- LAOC
- peakoil.org
- hubbertpeak.com
- Wikipedia
- peakoil.com
...47. TOD NYC
ASPO come is first if I search: "peak oil"
Maybe I'm behind the times.
The oddities of google will never cease to amaze me.
Did their homework? Well, OK then! A little fuzzy on the timing? Yeah, I'd say so. How did they define the peak? I don't agree with Deffeyes that we hit 50% Qt on December 16th and that's that. There is more oil to get out of the ground from EOR (especially CO2 injection) but that's hardly the point is it? Given even an overall 4% depletion rate on existing production/mature fields, which I think is conservative at this point, the peak is this
It is that day/month that daily production in terms of millions of barrels per day reaches its maximum ± 1 or 2% and never rises above that level again.
This is the undulating plateau and who cares about the rest? And a good case can be made that we are there. Suppose we continue at current levels for the next 2 or 3 years and never exceed them within the percentages I cite above? What happens then? Others will tell us, mirabile dictu, that available supply will exceed demand and there will spare capacity, a glut. Is that going to happen? Of course not. This is peak oil. I'll make my prediction. Never above 87/mbpd (all liquids). And with all the current and pending oil shocks, I'd be surprised if the world ever makes that. Where the oil is and where the people are consuming it at high rates are entirely two different things aren't they? And, to be simple about this, the producers and the consumers don't overall like each other very much, do they? Aside from the decline rates from old fields, lack of new discoveries, the miracles of recovery technologies, etc.
Enough said.
So while I agree with you that the Times is not sending a strong "true" signal, I think this might be part of an acceleration.
I've actually slowed my expectations recently. I was thinking it might be ten years before Americans really start to deal with this (waiting basically until gasoline prices jump outside their current growth curve).
So how will it go, fast or slow?
I don't know ... I've only had half a cup of coffee.
I don't know if the editorial writers at the Times read the magazine, probably not ...
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/12/18/153011/19
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/8/20/194828/608
http://www.theoildrum.com/classic/2005/08/peak-oil-breaking-news-in-nyt-this.html
but, there's something more poignant about an associate editor taking this on from the ol' grey lady...
But I really have to wonder about the Times. Are these senior editors really now just catching on to the possibility of peak oil?
I'm an editor of a small magazine in rural Colorado. I've been writing about this scenario for what ... more than two years now?
As to your question, I don't know. It's a good point.
The Semple op-ed piece does indeed reference the Peter Maas article in the New York Times.
http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1
"I guess between this and the mention in Fortune, my street cred as some sort of anti-system rebel is shot to shit. Oh well."
Best,
Matt
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I have the facemask, leather pants, and gas-syphoning equipment ready to go.
My hope is the shit hits the fan before I turn 30 in 2.5 years. That way I'll still be young, strong, and swift enough to be able to rip solar panels off roofs and haul ass back to my post-oil lair before the homeowning hippie geezers who make up the bulk of our movement know what hit them.
I told Jay that if I ever find myself in Kona, "its on bitch."
To inclusive fitness!,
Matt
Warning, my panels are electrified.
They go into a special high voltage mode when they detect criminal criminal lawyers lurking about. Sawed-off spring-door shotguns are hidden behind every panel. Also, vicious dog on premises. A word to the wise wards off lawsuits and pin striped suits. :-)
Best,
Matt
In individual battle, age and treachery MAY beat youth and skill, but speaking genetically, the future belongs to the young--Always has, always will! In the long run, Nature is on your side. Old farts like me are just marking time. Peak-Body&Mind eventually catches everyone.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
When I got in Fortune, I called my friend and said, "I'm in Fortune Magazine, bitch!"
Tried that with NY Times, but it doesn't have the same ring.
Best,
Matt
Best,
Matt
Anyone get the early morning edition of the NYT? I am wondering if this will be an op-ed in print as well...
The WSJ editorial pages probably won't come around for a while, but they'll talk about it a lot more as a result of this.
The NYT editorial is certainly a major milestone. Any guesses when these milestones are reached?
I checked on that. It looks like they'd be lucky to get 10 billion barrels out of that field.
I don't think that's going to cut it ...
Interesting....and yet (??)
If you take out the hurricanes, the price really has not moved upward all that much. I know I know, back in the days of the Wild Billery Hill show, you could bottom fish oil and gas (and gasoline) at half the price, but, if you take into consideration the collapse of oil/gas prices (and thusly investment) in the late 1980's, early 1990's, and factor the long view by inflation, it's just not shown any sign that the big market players get it.
In the U.S. South (KY, TN, AL) we are paying generally a $2.15 to $2.25 price on gasoline. Remember, this is pickup truck, motor home power boat country....that price is causing NO ONE to even consider conserving...h#ll, beer has went up that much in the last 15 years!
If the emergency is just around the corner, we have to admit this: The price signal is broken. Why?
Part of the issue seems to be perception: Everybody has been led to believe that one morning after gassing up the ole' SUV, you would get out of bed and BANG!!, THERE IT WOULD BE PEAK!! Every newpaper would be shouting it in the headlines, CNN would be reporting it like a terror attack ("Well, Bill, it seems as though peak struck about 9:20AM this morning...and Washington is calling an emergency meeting with the EU to plan a coordinated reaction..."
Energy is MUCH more complex than that. Let's take the 1970 lower U.S. peak as an example. There were no headlines, no one (not even the inside players) knew it had happened). It is an astounding fact of history that it was not even admitted official until 1979, and the Secretary of Energy STILL qualified his remarks, "It looks like the United States MAY HAVE peaked in about in 1970." (!!) Nine years later and IT COULD STILL BE DEBATED (among some flat earthers, it is still debated!!
What we saw in the 1970's in the U.S. we are now seeing on a global scale...multi peaks depending on what is being measured, almost silent efficiency gains in some places, and "fuel switching" both current and planned on a massive scale.
Fuel switching to what? In the 1970's, we had natural gas. We still do, but not near enough. The LNG proposal is one attempt at trying to partially switch out, as is the GTL (gas to liquids), CTL (coal to liquids), bio-fuel, and back and forth between coal and gas.
But that's only for the big players, you say. No, not really. In my home area of Kentucky, in a decently insulated house, I know of several friends who have backed off the natural gas heat, and went to Walmart and bought a few "space heaters". "These things are miracles!" The proclaim as they talk about the money they save on gas....not realizing that they are essentially "fuel switching" to buy time.
It can get very complicated. At one plant in Illinois, they are refitting an old fertilizer plant to liquify coal, to make synthetic gas, that will then be used to make synthetic nitrogen fertilizer...to grow corn to make ethanol (!!!)
So we are seeing the multi peaks of a giant mountainscape: Peak light sweet crude (almost a certainty now), peak heavy crude oil (possbly close at hand), peak non-OPEC (a big maybe, depending on Russia, West Africa, deepwater drilling and arctic drilling), peak OPEC (?), (Simmons says very soon, but hard to prove and define), peak all liquids, peak natural gas in North America (but not yet the world), and now with coal to liquids, gas to liquids, gas to fertilizer and even coal to fertilizer (and then to corn?) and fuel switching, how would you define it, "peak easy switchables"?
Peak? When, where, and of what? We have not even began to get deeply into the "unconventionals, tar sand, a switch by use of natural gas, oil shales, possibly a switch by way of nuclear power plants, more variety of bio fuels (pond scum, landfill gas, microbial methane production, and sewer gas (to fertilizer, to compressed natural gas, to fertilizer to corn to ethanol?) This is the complex game of today that will only get more complex tomorrow, and makes trying to guess the peak a fool's game.
Trust the human race to go through the whole periodic table of elements in their quest to maintain this lifestyle...don't be investing in horse drawn buggies and ox carts just yet.
you touched a few issues, generalized
and i guess all in all accomplished what
TOD is best used for....
emotional tissue paper...dry you eyes.
having read TOD for a while and as with most
other issues of reality,
It all becomes very redundant....
web sites are always dominated by a few individuals
that eventually drive out all intelligence capable
of expotential growth..... translation - garner what you can
but, cut the crap.... no one knows jack. But, some body
is surely paying, somewhere for this wonderful life.
makes me think that a persons body/being
is all you get
and it (also) peaks with time...
how long has mankind known that?
And still .... can't stop it...
the big circle of life?
again... pretty redundant stuff....
can't change the world
if you can't change yourself
save the planet... unplug the computer
and plant a tree... sheesh... but then again
NY don't you have a senator named Clinton?
When do , have we hit...
Hubbberts curve for peak BUSH ...Clinton ???
politics....redundant....
Love.... Peak LOVE.... Huuummnn
sheesh....
Think I'll just go fishing... wait..
the fish are dead.
O.k just sit in the boat... wait...
the water's gone
just roll my eyes back in my head.
ah... thats better.
redundant!!!!
pray??? works for me.
In 1979 it was still possible for a rational person to think that the North Slope production might offset the post-1970 decline in the lower 48, with some to spare. If it had, there would have been a (small) new US peak.
Yes - they have us increasing production for the next 10 years, followed by a decline.
I think you are more correct in the exact details of the alchemy on what they are doing, I was speaking from my memory of looking at the design and did not bother to go back and look at all the steps, because I was only trying to make my central point, that coal, gas oil, fertilizer. liqiuids, solids and vapors are now being viewed as interchangable, one being changed into another, all you need is money!
It will still have exactly the effect I predicted: Real world "peak" anything will get harder to prove has ever happened, and when, and of what.
We still may have to look for a new name other than "Peak OIl", which now effectively tells us nothing.
You know, that's EXACTLY the kind of event that would get some media coverage.
It seems to me that a press release and press kit that contains the relevent (and jucy) quotes, and maybe even ready-to-publish text, pictures, audio and video might get picked up for coverage on the 8th.
A Special Editorial Feature by GEORGE PAZIK Editor & Publisher, Fishing Facts, November 1976
Excerpt:
The preprinted version of Hubbert's paper distributed at the March 7, 1956 American Petroleum Institute meeting in San Antonio, Texas had the following statements:
"According to the best currently available information, the production of petroleum and natural gas on a world scale will probably pass its climax within the order of a half a century (i.e., 2006), while for both the United States and for Texas, the peaks of production may be expected to occur within the next 10 or 15 years. (i.e., 1966 to 1971)
"Assuming this prognosis is not seriously in error, it raises grave policy questions with regard to the future of the petroleum industry. It need not be emphasized that there is a vast difference between the running of an industry whose annual production can be counted on to increase on the average 5 to 10 percent per year and one whose output can be depended upon to decline at that rate. Yet, in terms of the production of natural gas and crude oil, this appears to be what the petroleum industry in the United States is facing."
(When the paper was published, after Shell Oil Company censors had finished with it, the statement above was deleted and replaced with the following: "the culmination for petroleum and natural gas in both the United States and Texas should occur within the next few decades.")
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Dammit. I get the electronic download edition (essentially a pdf of the dead tree edition), and this editorial doesn't appear there - it is online only. There is a little blurb telling people to go online, but I wonder how many people have bothered to register for times-select.
Still, I'd much rather see this addition to the conversation by Semple than not have it.
http://www.russiaprofile.org/politics/2006/2/6/3211.wbp
Interview with Russian Minister of Industry and Energy Viktor Khristenko
("The Need for Energy Dialogue")
Thomas Rymer, Russia Profile
Russian Minister of Industry an