BBC Newsnight mentions peak oil

Newsnight, the BBC's late night news programme mentioned peak oil last night (25/04/206). Almost a cross between news and current affairs the programme tends to tackle the issues of the day with more depth and analysis than a regular news broadcast. Asking questions rather than just presenting facts.

Last night covered the $75 oil story in some detail including an interview (reproduced below the fold) with Stephanie Flanders, their economics editor. This interview actually mentioned peak oil and displayed some graphs to illustrate the point.

Of course the economists conclusion was that current high prices would encourage us to conserve energy and also makes a lot of alternative and additional sources of energy more financially viable.

The full video of the programme is available for a short period from the Newsnight website: link.

This isn't the first time Newsnight has covered peak oil.

In December 2005 they hosted 'The End Of Oil Debate' featuring:
* James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency
* Sonia Shah, author of Crude: A History of Oil
* Richard D. North of the Institute of Economic Affairs in London
* Tom Burke of Imperial College London
* Prof. Paul Ormerod, author of Why Most Things Fail
* Prof. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, author of Ideas that Changed the World

The 39 minute video is available from Global Public Media.

Jeremy Paxman: Stephanie Flanders our economics editor is here now. I don't understand why people like you aren't worried?

Stephanie Flanders: Partly because we've seen this, in the last couple of years, everybody's been worried about the impact of these high prices and the economy has kind of carried on trundling on quite well. It has slowed the economy a bit and it has pushed inflation up a bit. But given in real terms the price of oil is now actually quite close to where it was in the late seventies and it's gone beyond where it was in the first oil shock, it's in a way surprising it hasn't done more damage.

Now one reason in the UK is that we still produce a lot of oil so it benefits us. I think more broadly though the richer economies now find this more easier the handle because thanks to conservation they use less energy per 1% of economic growth than they did before.

The increase in prices as Paul was saying is coming from economic strength and rising energy demand, it hasn't come from a false cap on supply like it did in the seventies and that's made a difference. There's also the extra thing, you've got hundreds of billions of dollars of oil profits sloshing around the world economy that these oil exporters have and don't really know what to do with. A lot of that's actually going through the city and helping to keep interest rates lower than they would be. So although it's not very pretty for us at the pump, there is reason to be cheerful.

JP: That also led to a lot of trouble in the past as we all, the older ones among us can recall. I suppose it also encourages people not to be so profligate with oil I suppose.

SF: That's one reason why people like us, economists, actually think it's a good thing, it encourages us to conserve energy. It also makes a lot of alternative and additional sources of energy more financially viable as well, that has a huge impact. If you look at this graphic.


Click to enlarge.
[This graph seems to peak at ~40mbpd though! CV]

This is where we are, if we assume that the price of oil was going to be $20 a barrel for the next 50 years, this is what global oil production looks like and actually we're getting quite close to the peek of global oil production.

But if you assume it's $75, suddenly you push that day of reckoning way out and if you actually start having conservations, slower energy demand it goes out even that much further.


Click to enlarge.

So in that sense this is all rather good since it encourages all these new supplies...

JP: But you can't take it for granted.

SF: No and that's actually the problem, the companies don't know any more than we do whether or not the price is going to stay here at $75 and if it doesn't then obviously a lot of those very long term, 5, 10, 15 year ahead investments suddenly look less secure and they probably won't do them. So that's definitely a source of uncertainty, especially if the speculators that Paul Mason talked about, if they start deciding that oil isn't the great thing it has been over the last couple of years and pull out and the price falls then we're back to worrying about possibly the peak of oil production.

Even if those new supplies come through of course if you're George Bush you're worried about the fact that some of it comes from Canada but a lot of it comes from Venezuela and Iran so even though the short term looks like we can weather it quite well it looks as if there are plenty of things to worry about in the long term as usual.

JP: That's reassuring! Stephanie thanks very much.

The first graphic shows a peak - as far as can be seen from the scale - at about 2011.  It's more or less the current ASPO graph.  The second graphic based on $75/bbl oil suggests that about 2.5 times as much oil per annum would be available.  Where is this going to come from!?  This would surely take $trillions of investment in tar sands, oil shales, etc., and cause massive environmental damage.  Even then, most projections don't suggest it would get anywhere near this level.  

It looks to me like more wonky cornucopian economics of the "nothing to worry about" type.

Even more worrying than doctorbob's observation is that they seem to have miraculously 'created' about 3 times as much oil between the 1st chart and the 2nd chart.

If you assume that everything below the line is recoverable crude oil.

The other nonsense from charts like that is that the price can NEVER stay still. The first chart shows the cheap oil staying cheap - right down to the last drop.

If these graphs were meant to pacify / re-assure / placate or otherwise throw people off the scent, then it has certainly failed!

I do wonder why 'old Paxo' didn't pick up on it though - he is a bright guy...

I do wonder why 'old Paxo' didn't pick up on it though - he is a bright guy...


And going by his questions in the December debate has a pretty good idea about peak oil.  I expect Paxman to be one of the most important media players in bring peak oil to fore in the UK.
"they seem to have miraculously 'created' about 3 times as much oil between the 1st chart and the 2nd chart."
It's as if the fact that oil will be $75 instead of $20 will allow 100% recovery from existing fields - the "technology will solve it" approach.  Presumably the rest is 100% recovery of all tar sand, oil shale, heavy oil deposits, etc.  The problems of producing useful hydrocarbon fuels from the tar sands have been well explored on the central TOD site - huge investment, huge energy input (gas at present), huge water use, huge pollution problems.  All the indications are that it's not going to be 1/10th as big a contribution as the graphic shows.

Maybe some of these people will only take notice when these outputs simply don't materialise after conventional oil peaks.

She also said that the economy is still trundling on pretty well in spite of rising oil prices.  How long can it continue to do so when the oil price increases at 30+% per year and people are spending a big chunk of their income just driving to/from work, shops, proces of flights and public transport rocket, etc?  There must come a point where things start to break down.

I can't now recall where I read it (possibly Econbrowser) but isn't the US economy (and by implication, others too) floating on very low interest rates and the drawdown of housing equity etc? In other words, there has been a cushion of liquidity mitigating the impact of high oil prices. Whereas in Asia it is simply driven by the economic boom (which can sustain a regularly increasing price).

Presumably the cash injections will ease off at some point, and the recession will hit. (The alternative - Bernanke's helicopters dropping dollars - would cause a rather rapid collapse in the currency, I think)

BTW did anyone else see the article in the Sunday Telegraph discussing Russian proposals to go against the petrodollar?

There must come a point where things start to break down...

The Scotsman Newspaper

http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=562192006

"She said that, with a likely continued rise in the cost of oil, small businesses could no longer sustain the additional costs.

We should be looking to the Chancellor not just for a freeze in fuel duty but a marked reduction."

(I work in a business in Edinburgh that uses pedal bikes for transport:)

Given that ASPO definitely isn't proposing a peak at 2100 at $75/bbl,
the curve shown of a 2011 peak at $20/bbl is, logically, to be accredited as theirs.

Since when did ASPO propose any such curve as being $20-price-dependent ?

Methinks Campbell (and perhaps TOD UK ?) have some serious complaining to do.

Regards,

Backstop

I dont think the Economics advisor really quite gets it yet. She is applying the 'law' of supply and demand to a system constrained by geological reality here and everywhere else. True, if oil prices go up, then marginal fields become attractive and are developed. So true for tar sands and oil shales. It is possible that traders, dealers etc are pushing up the price a bit, and there is probably a fear premium. It is likely that oil will drop and gain and drop and gain over the coming months years. BUT:

  1. Depletion is inexorable. The UKCS is a model example.
  2. Price increase will not significantly increase available oil in a mature province unless startlingly large new finds are made. This is rare. The last 'big' find in the UKCS was Buzzard. There may be one or two more who knows, but at 8%-12% year on year depletion in the UKCS, such finds will not change the downward  slope.
  3. Oil price will pass through in inflation and will also leave less money for discretionary spending with knock on effects in sales etc. Ultimately this will hurt the UK Economy.
  4. People will conserve, oil price may drop back as people cut back so the oil price, supply and demand will 'wobble' when close to peak.
  5. The UK Treasury is doing well out oil prices and the UK Economy is protected by our own oil production. (Imagine what the situation would be like if we had NO oil and had to import all requirements...) . But this protection will reduce with time as depletion continues

The Economists are not 'getting it' yet. But that is because they have not yet seen anything like this before. But this is just a matter of time. Could be soon could be later. But they will get it.

Just hope the great and good get it sooner rather than later while we have enough money for Nuclear Power, Tidal barriers etc.

The Elephant is still in the room.

hello TOD UK,

BBC Newsnight, Paul Mason, journalist has a link/blog assessing reaction to high petrol prices following the airing of the Tuesday night show's $75 oil discussion.
I Submitted TOD and ENERGYBULLETIN as further reading for interested parties, also listed Simmons, Campbell, Hirsch, Savinar and Kunstler as possible research directions.

This commment apppeared temporarily as no.9 - then disappeared.

Seeing as TOD US want us to spread the news - this is a setback.

The scale on their charts is clearly wrong, I assume they took the same amount of care with the rest of the presentation. The charts are rendered gibberish. I wonder where they got the US Energy Dept figures, (EIA I assume), but I couldn't find any graphs like that. They look a bit like some charts I saw at trendlines.ca, but that site appears to be down.

Paxman's sarcasm doesn't come out in the transcript, he seemed as sceptical of the economist position as we are.

I would be great for someone one day to actually give the correct reason why prices are high, instead of saying "no one knows". By making it seem mysterious and out of our hands they deter any positive action.

PS: Aha, here we go (courtesy of Wikipedia):

Note Freddy has truncated the peaks because the originals are impossible based on URR, IIRC. Newsnight have used the "impossible" versions ;-)

There is an article at

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1724&Item id=2

by Andrew McKillop. Economists will be in denial even after the SHTF.

Below is an extract
Getting back to the narrow question of why oil demand (and world gas demand now growing at around 5%-per-year) are much less than unaffected by rising prices, but are directly increased by higher oil and gas prices, we finally call on facts. We can use theory first, but finally we call on facts, because scientific theory is based on and comes from facts. The other way round is called economics - that is, bending facts to fit broken back theories.

Price elasticity of anything has an underlying notion, hard to quantify, of `satisfaction', and another of `substitution'. Neither of these have much place for the vast majority of oil and gas users. Nobody uses oil and gas `for the fun of it', or at least very few persons. Equally, the famous `hi-tech emerging new energy' substitutes and alternatives simply don't exist. They may exist on the NASDAQ or in people's heads and PCs, and in cute business video presentations, but not in the real economy.

I saw this on the telly and got hopping mad.  It was the ludicrous graph No 2, where we go up to 80 bn barrels per year!  I tried to phone the BBC to complain, but before I got through I decided that I was too angry to make sense and put the phone down.

But it really is annoying that the BBC should put out BS like this, and implicate ASPO in this nonsense too.  Cause for complaint indeed.  Has anyone told Colin or Jake?

I've sent word to Colin but haven't heard back from him yet.
Chris - seeing as you're in touch with Campbell, there are some questions regarding the Rimini Protocal that I'd really like to see clarified.

Try as I have, I'm stuck on a series of points.

1/. Why should nations/regimes who believe they can gain relative wealth & power through the post-peak stresses be interested ?

2/. Why should developing nations accept a pro rata decline of oil usage with the major consumers ?

3/. Where is the sufficiently cogent motivation (pre-crash) for transforming the global oil business from maximum obscurantism to total reserve transparency ?

4/. What are the principles under which the desiderata list of objectives will be decided ?

Various other questions are pending, but I'd be glad if you can clarify these at all.

regards,

Backstop

Backstop.
The Rimini Protocol is a solution. The beauty of it is: signing up to it means that you are actively taking steps to reduce your oil dependence and to lowering the oil price. Any nation which continues to increase their oil dependence will be more vulnerable to peak oil. The only countries that would be negatively affected in the short term would be the exporters. However, because the exporters own such a vast amount of capital the Rimini Protocol could could cause problems in the global economy.
As far as the reserves.. The oil companies have very little to do with it. The US wants to keep the fantasy of the reported reserves alive as it depresses oil prices. The exporting nations cannot come clean because of OPEC (quota) and internal politics (running out).
I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I'm really sorry about having posted my comment four times, is that some kind of record? I can assure you that was not my intention. I hope some nice person can remove the three offending posts, before it drives everyone mad!
I think the Beebs Posh Totty Economist googled up her limited understanding just before the program and copied her graphs from This page. Then she changed their meaning from a demonstration of the URR P5, P50, P95 statistical nonsense, which she might have recognised as nonsense - she is after all intelligent posh totty - to her, as an economist, more 'rational' $20 and $75 dollar nonsense.