Peak Oil Faithful Dealt Another Blow

[ParanoiA]

Where is the data that says we have enough oil to last hundreds of years?

 

This seems like a perfectly fair question. Peak Oil Man provided data for his side, so how about you Pangloss?

 

Seriously, I'd like to compare the two. I see where you're coming from Pangloss, so it shouldn't be hard to refute his data with yours.

[bascule]

I believe that Peak Oil Man is making the best argument in this thread. He has posted a graph created by an oil company

 

That graph wasn't created by an oil company

 

and it clearly shows that the discovery of new oil sources has declined sharply. This data is also comparable to data from other reliable sources. Most of these sources are showing that production will start to decrease between 2006-2010.

 

What sources are those? The three sources I cited claim peak oil is at least 20 years off.

 

This prediction was made by calculating the known supply of oil, the current demand for oil, and the decreasing rate in which new oil is being discovered.

 

I'm sure you could get these numbers from reliable sources, and come up with the same prediction yourself. Just do the math.

 

Yes, static analysis. If you apply the same to razor blades, then Schick will release an infinite-bladed razor by 2015.

 

What I have trouble understanding is how people assume peak oil is all fictional.

 

Strawman. We're just staying the estimates being presented by peak oil alarmists are, at best, extremely pessamistic. Furthermore, static analysis has repeatedly lead people to the conclusion that we're exhausting the world's oil supply. However, by USGS's estimates, we've consumed some 20% of the world's oil supply.

 

Who's right?

 

It's obvious that oil is a non-renewable resource, so its production will decrease someday. Peak Oil Man has already provided the data that supports his prediction. Where is the data that says we have enough oil to last hundreds of years?

 

Peak Oil Man is not citing his sources or linking to reliable web sites. He's also providing boiled down versions full of editorializing (and even then, he provides no sources for those)

 

See:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

 

 

 

 

 

See also:

 

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/2worldoil.mideast.html

 

I think perhaps the funniest part is:

 

The US Geological Survey’s 2000 report is ‘thoroughly flawed.’ Its estimate of future reserve growth (which it predicts will be almost as important as future discoveries) is unsound. The estimate was made by extrapolating US experience to the rest of the world. This is unsound because of the different conditions and because US reserve reporting is driven by US prudential standards which are not necessarily replicated elsewhere.

 

Here Peak Oil Man attacks the USGS because their estimates are based on static analysis (also, he doesn't cite where this argument is coming from. I'm guessing his web page?)

 

Yet all of his arguments are based on static analysis.

[herme3]

Where have I said that peak oil is fictional? Are you talking about someone else?

 

I wasn't talking about you in that statement. I was just talking about some of the other peak oil skeptics out there. You wouldn't believe how many people actually think oil is a renewable resource.

 

But he's not asking us to consider the possibility, he's asking us to take it as FACT.

 

Of course, peak oil is a fact. Everything that is limited will eventually be depleted unless everybody stops using it. Either way, the production of oil will reach a peak. The main question is when will it happen? That is where Peak Oil Man and others need to be careful about confusing facts with predictions.

 

Yes, the rate of discovery of new oil sources is decreasing. That is a fact. However, it is not known if that rate will continue to decrease until oil production peaks. It is possible that new technology could be developed that could increase the rate for a while before it starts to decrease again. In that case, it is possible for a cheap supply of oil to continue for hundreds of years.

 

However, the vast majority of data I have seen is pointing to a peak between 2006-2010. I have read about advanced satellite technology that should be able to map any remaining oil supplies yet to be discovered. According to the sources I have seen, the chances of more large oil discoveries are very small. That does not, however, make it impossible.

 

I agree with Peak Oil Man and his prediction that oil production will peak around 2008. Most of the sources I have seen support his prediction. However, I do not believe he should present it as a fact. While he does provide some data to support it, it is still just a prediction.

 

And his "evidence" for that leap of faith is entirely on blinders and lopsided analysis. He presents us with a dozen experts, ignoring the vast majority of experts. He presents us with charts and graphs, ignoring other charts and graphs.

 

Could you please provide links to the other charts and graphs? Most of the ones I've seen predict the peak of oil production in the near future.

[herme3]

What sources are those? The three sources I cited claim peak oil is at least 20 years off.

 

It appears that all the graphs you posted are from one source, the EIA. I'm not saying they are wrong, but they are still only one source.

 

Here are some interesting sites that contain articles written by a variety of different scientists:

 

http://www.dieoff.org/

 

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

[ParanoiA]

Looks to me like Peak Oil is a reality, the argument being when. Since oil sucks ass with all it's war and apparent monopoly on the american lifestyle - let's start trying to ditch it now. Who cares who made the graphs or provided the data? It's a good enough reason when we didn't really need another.

 

 

 

(Looks kinda weak compared to Peak Oil Man's novella up there....)

[bascule]

The article you linked reiterates what I'm saying Peak Oil Man: projections of several reputable agencies place peak oil around 2025-2030.

 

You continue to ignore oil shale:

 

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp

 

With the miraculous advances in deep sea drilling of the last decade, and the miraculous jump from 3d seismic to ultra-Virtual Reality Visualization techniques, I would have thought that we would have discovered the most oil we ever discovered in the last decade or so?

 

But NO! We discovered the most oil we ever did with the barbaric but tried and true techniques of 40 years ago. Please explain.

 

We discovered the oil that was easy to discover at roughly the same time because it was easy?

 

And again, you're asking us to come to conclusions based on static analysis. I refuse. Static analysis is not an accurate means to assess future trends. You're using the most pessamistic of projections to raise alarm.

 

The Australian government is simply making the same criticisms of the USGS methods that I'm using to criticise your methods.

 

There's both optimistic and pessamistic projections, and the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

 

However, the most reasonable projections would seem to indicate that we have at least a decade to move towards solution voluntarily before market forces really begin to drive it in that direction.

 

In the meantime, you're giving us nonstop fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That's all I see out of you: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt

 

be worried now

 

terrible social and economic consequences

 

Shouldn't we be counting what we do know we have?

 

What you're doing is just fearmongering. You ignore all evidence to the contrary, or claim it's unreliable.

 

The USGS data comes from static analysis of trends, the same methodology you are using to give the most dire of predictions (i.e. that we are at or have already passed peak oil). The same methodology can be used to give optimistic projections as well. It all depends on what the person doing the analysis wants the numbers to show. You can fit any number of equations to an existing set of data and project them however you want. For example you could extrapolate on the recent upturn in oil discoveries and say that oil discoveries will be infinite by 2015.

 

Static analysis doesn't give reliable projections due to unpredictable factors.

 

You are still yet to demonstrate why market forces as well as present and future voluntary steps by governments are insufficient to resolve the problem.

 

And there's much, much bigger world issues to be overzealous about. HIV/AIDS kills 4,000 people EVERY SINGLE DAY. Why aren't you concerned about that?

[bascule]

Looks to me like Peak Oil is a reality, the argument being when.

 

Oil is obviously a finite resource, and at some point oil output will start to go down rather than up. But for now, oil production continues to increase, and several government and international agencies don't predict a peak for 20 years.

 

Here's a Christian Science Monitor article that, like the Reason article, juxtaposes peak oil theorists claims with some sensible responses, both from the USGS and from international agencies and oil analysts:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0129/p14s01-wogi.html

 

Personally, I don't see peak oil happening for at least another 20 years, and in that time I expect massive technological advances.

 

We're seeing massive advances in fuel economy (The Honda Insight and Toyota Prius will both see models with 100+MPG in the next few years), moves towards non-petroleum based fuels, and other advances which will work to mitigate the problem.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Let's not start getting hostile.

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes, static analysis. If you apply the same to razor blades, then Schick will release an infinite-bladed razor by 2015.

 

Is that a linear or exponential regression?

[bascule]

1. Where do the USGS get their OPEC data?

 

I already linked the DOE site which provided this answer:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html

 

In April 2000 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released results of the most thorough and methodologically modern assessment of world crude oil and natural gas resources ever attempted. This 5-year study was undertaken "to provide impartial, scientifically based, societally relevant petroleum resource information essential to the economic and strategic security of the United States." It was conducted by 40 geoscientists (many with industry backgrounds) and was reviewed stage-by-stage by geoscientists employed by many petroleum industry firms including several of the multinational majors.

 

I refuse to dignify #2 with a response.

[bascule]

The answers are also in the ABC's Catalyst's 12 minute piece if you can't be bothered watching Four Corners, although 4 Corners was far more thorough on this point.

 

I watched the ABC segment here:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/science/broadband/catalyst/asx/oilcrisis_hi.asx

 

No mention of USGS or OPEC. I don't have the answers but then again I don't have the burden of proof. You are the one claiming their methodology is flawed. Can you find specific problems with it, or are you just going to continue to attack it with unsubstantiated generalizations?

 

If you're going to play the "My government is better than your government!" game, can you at least link to your government's web site rather than providing unattributed quotes or paraphrased information from your web site?

 

The Four Corners special is available here:

 

http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

 

I'll watch it when I get some time.

[bascule]

Here's a couple questions for you Peak Oil Man:

 

1. Has oil already peaked?

2. If so, why does oil production continue to increase, and if not, when do you believe the peak will occur?

[Pangloss]

Isn't it funny how the critical time for peak oil is now 2008? Just a couple of years ago it was 2005. Before that it was 2002. Before that it was 1999. Before that it was 1997. The original prediction was 1995 -- eleven years ago!

 

In 2005 ASPO decided that the end of the world would be in 2010. I guess they decided that that wasn't doomy and gloomy enough, so they changed it to 2008. Much more exciting that way, especially since it's a US presidential election year!

 

Remember, the key tenet of peak oil is not that we're running out, but that there will be a peak production capacity. There were many predictions that we'd "peak out" at 70-75 million bpd. T. Boone Pickens famously renewed this gaff at 84 million bpd -- we're well past that now.

 

 

I wasn't talking about you in that statement. I was just talking about some of the other peak oil skeptics out there. You wouldn't believe how many people actually think oil is a renewable resource.

 

Fair enough. I agree with the sentiment.

 

 

That is where Peak Oil Man and others need to be careful about confusing facts with predictions.

 

Exactly, thank you. Succinct and absolutely on point.

 

 

Bascule is doing just fine without my intervention, but a little common sense injected into the conversation from another perspective couldn't hurt.

 

Some articles about OPEC talking about cutting production this week, the spike that caused in oil prices, and the decision to go ahead and increase production some more. None of which had anything to do with alarmism about peak oil.

 

Lynch's infamous debunking of Hubbert. The section on misinterpretation of causality is particularly noteworthy.

 

Whatever else y'all get from this, I sure hope you all read this:

Yep, it’s all fun fun fun. I’ve organized a team that briefed NSW State government Senators… the minority parties. We laid down the science, and by the time we left that room, those Senators were scared. One even burst out, “What are government and corporations DOING about this!?” He realized it was going to happen on his watch, and he was scared. But hey, a few thrills and chills in the service of science and preparing society are just an added bonus, hey? Yeah, I'm only in this for the hype.

 

Isn't it nice to know that our governments are so carefully, thoughtfully, objectively, scientifically advised?

[-Demosthenes-]

One of the many perks of a large society is that everyone is always thinking of stuff. So there's a guy, and he decides he can make money by implimenting a new energy source and selling it. Maybe out of billions of people in the world, a couple people will think of something like that. Maybe greed isn't the most moral of things to rely on, but it's so reliable. It's always the same.

 

So the only way that we are in trouble is if oil is the only way to get effiecient energy. Does anyone really believe that?

 

Theres a giant ball of burning gas radiading massive amounts of energy onto the earth. It takes up 99% of the matter in the entire solar system; it is the source for virtually ALL energy on earth. I want some of that action.

[bascule]

I think the crux of the argument comes down to this:

 

It seems to me that you just keep repeating “static analysis” as if that somehow means counting the oil we do know is there is somehow the wrong approach?

 

Yes, it is the wrong approach.

 

Static analysis is based on the assumption that conditions are fixed and unchanging.

 

counting the oil we do know is there is somehow the wrong approach

 

The above statement assumes we will not discover new oil.

 

However:

 

1. Conditions are constantly changing

2. We will discover new oil

 

I don't think I could find a better example than the graph you presented:

 

 

There is a very stark disconnect between the real world data and the projections on this graph. The projections show a smooth decline into nothingness, while the real world data illustrates a high degree of variability.

 

My question is: why should we assume the trend will continue as projected on this graph?

[YT2095]

Peak oil man,

 

can you please start using your Edit button, that`s twice now I`ve had to merge multiple posts of yours.

 

Thnx

[Technofix]

We are not likely to run out of oil of any quality any time soon. However we are facing the looming prospect of a production peak, something which is largely a human and logistical phenomenon, rather than a geological one.

 

Oil production will likely soon peak, resulting in a bumpy plateau for a while, before beginning its inevitable descent towards full exhaustion. The only real argument is on the timing and severity of the decline. Production will peak and decline because of depletion in existing fields – especially of the giant and supergiant fields most of which are now getting very old. The lack of new discoveries sufficiently large enough to offset existing depletion in these very large fields, and satisfy an increasing demand for oil driven by exponential economic and population growth, plus the poor development and production prospects for unconventional substitutes such as tar sands, heavy oil, coal, and shale etc.

[Skye]

I've never understood why people think the Saudi's have been overestimating their oil. It would make more sense for them to underestimate their wells, thus boosting prices and reducing pressure from the US to increase output. And it gels better with the fact that they have been able to keep cranking up output.

[ParanoiA]

I've never understood why people think the Saudi's have been overestimating their oil. It would make more sense for them to underestimate their wells, thus boosting prices and reducing pressure from the US to increase output. And it gels better with the fact that they have been able to keep cranking up output.

 

I would think it would make more sense to overestimate their oil so we'll just keep buying and not worry about it. If they underestimated their wells, that could trigger us to start looking at alternative fuels and they would eventually lose their trust fund.

 

Oil is the only thing that really makes middle east relevant. If they didn't have oil, I'm not sure how they'd make enough money to buy the weapons to kill everybody with. Yet another reason why I'd like to see oil demand plummet. I'd like to see the middle east actually have to produce something positive for the world in order to make any money.

[bascule]

Bascule,

 

I will address your concerns about future trends (remind me if I forget?) AND the USGS data table, if you will please answer the question I've asked umpteen times already.

 

How do any of our energy agencies know what is happening in Saudi Arabia?

 

Peak Oil Man,

 

I don't know. Why don't you read the USGS report, find the method they used, and criticize that?

 

You like to argue with only questions. Your refusal to make statements regarding your position, but instead throwing up a smokescreen of questions, is the same approach used by conspiracy theorists who don't actually want to advance their position, but merely confuddle the issue with uncertainty.

 

I asked, I believe, a fairly good question about the projections you're advancing, and you've come back with a red herring.

 

Can you please stop trying to make your argument in the form of questions, and instead start making statements which can be evaluated for factuality?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss,

Do you want to tone down the sarcasm?

We are trying to get to the bottom of this OK, and you’re pen dripping with acid isn’t helping advance the cause any.

 

You’re a moderator — I expect a little bit more self control.

 

Tweak all the noses you want, your partisanship and closed mind are manifest every time you open your mouth. There's no lack of control -- I've said exactly what I wanted to say. As far as I'm concerned this thread has accomplished nothing other than to give you a platform for advertising your faith-based cause. Asking me to "tone down the sarcasm" is like asking this membership to go easy on Creationists. You have subverted your reason for a leap of faith. End of story.

 

That having been said, I'm done with you. I don't feel I'm objective and impartial enough to issue bans or warnings, so you get to reap the benefit of the doubt on the part of the other mods and admins. It's disappointing, but I respect their opinions and that's how it goes sometimes in debate. (You should try it some time.)

 

Debate is about listening and learning, not convincing others to see the light. But you're not here to listen and learn, you're here to preach from a pulpit. I have nothing to learn from someone like you. Which, if you knew me, you would know is the worst insult I could ever level at anyone.

 

'Nuff said.

 

 

I've never understood why people think the Saudi's have been overestimating their oil. It would make more sense for them to underestimate their wells, thus boosting prices and reducing pressure from the US to increase output. And it gels better with the fact that they have been able to keep cranking up output.

 

Part of this goes back to the historical politics of OPEC. The Saudis were part of the "lower prices" faction in OPEC. This faction, which included mainly nations with larger reserves, tried to keep prices down on the basis of maintaining consistent long-term business. The opposing faction, which included nations like Iran and Venezuela, were historically concerned about running out of oil, so they wanted to get as much for it as they can, thus the desire to push for higher prices.

 

But I say "historical" because it's unclear whether these factions even exist anymore in the new (higher price) oil market (i.e. you could well be right). Up until recently the OPEC web site listed their desired price range as $22-28/barrel, even while prices were soaring past the $50 mark. But more recent OPEC behavior suggests a new environment within that organization, and I've not read a lot about how the politics of OPEC are currently playing out.

[darkangel199]

i think this entire discussion is crazy. We know it wont last forever,you are only debating when it will run out, not if. And we know that it puts bad stuff in the air and causes all kinds of problems. We should be moving away whether we've rached "peak oil" or not simply because of all the hazards and problems oil causes.

[bascule]

So, thank you for reiterating everything I've already said, Peak Oil Man.

 

The USGS has provided optimistic static analysis.

You are providing pessamistic static analysis.

 

Neither of these are a particularly accurate way to obtain projections.

[ParanoiA]

Part of the problem here Peak Oil Man, is that people are always suspicious when your posts look like spam mail. You've utilized every possible function on this message toolbar to write and paste in graphs and etc. And while you are providing evidence to your argument, it reads more like tabloid propaganda.

 

I've seen this happen to honest folks many times. They come into an argument with so much knowledge and they blast away with it, cramming it all into giant posts. Anytime you do that, people will be suspicious of it - even though you're actually providing supporting evidence to your beliefs.

 

It would be like some guy who knocks on your door to talk about global warming, and how the world is going to burn up in a fireball by 2015. He starts unloading graphs and charts and running through data - all on your front porch. Sounds more like a propagandist looking for a mark.

 

I would suggest, MUCH shorter posts. Let the information come out naturally through replies. It doesn't need to be regurgitated all at once, with exclamation points on every sentence and it won't seem so contrived that way. Being an activist, you're already suspicious to most right off the line.

[YT2095]

in Peak oil mans defense

cramming it all into giant posts.

 

is at the request of Myself, that he should use the EDIT button as opposed to posting 3 or more single posts in a row.