Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[Bernie Gunther]

Odell is certainly one of the most persuasive critics of Hubbert's approach bigfish, but I think the evidence concerned now ranges a bit wider than Hubbert curves which after all are a working geologist's tool. Odell has a lot of arguments to back up his position but they are often different in kind from those used by the ASPO crowd. Economics vs geology to put it fairly crudely.

I've just got back from a week away and I'm too knackered to write a detailed post right now. When I do it'll probably be on the basis of this (pdf) which takes Odell's type of scenario seriously and models it in detail.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

OK, first let's look at the issue of abiotic oil. If this theory is true, then clearly we are in a different situation because almost all of the depletion analysis is based on the traditional theories of oil formation. The rate of replenishment of oil reserves then becomes a key issue, in much the same way as it becomes an issue with soil erosion (where the figures are not good, soil is replenished on average 40-50 times slower than it's eroded under agricultural conditions)

In any case, I still don't have a strong opinion about abiotic oil theory and I'm slightly suspicious that this may be another Russian scientific hoax like Dr Podlenkov the anti-gravity guy or the famous 1000mph Soviet racing car. So I'll suspend any judgement on that one until I've read enough to have a view.

So, meanwhile, let's have a look at what Odell, McCabe et. al. are saying about oil depletion. Odell's basic argument, given in your link above goes like this. (Please let me know if you think I'm substantially distorting it here)

Demand projections over the long term are around 2% and some of the more alarmist members of the depletion crowd, especially back in the 70's (which is when Odell made his rep for debunking environmentalist fears) made much higher projected growth assumptions in their scenarios.

For supply to be able meet demand, as Odell assumes in the link above it will, then non-conventional sources (tar sands, shale oil etc) will have to come online in increasing amounts, in addition to natural gas, to replace some conventional oil over the course of this century. Eventually in Odell's scenario, renewables will come to play an increasing role, although he seems to believe that this may require government intervention in markets in order to bring them online faster than market forces would, in response to concerns about e.g. climate change.

Odell makes some key assumptions. First, he assumes that declared reserves are believable (Campbell et al point out that there are plausible political and economic reasons why they may not be believable and we've seen some big downward adjustments in recent months.) Secondly he assumes that beyond 2010 the underlying price trend (ignoring e.g. situation in Iraq and other political disturbances to supply) will rise to pay for the necessary investments to make non-conventional oil viable. He assumes that such improvements are technically feasible, or will becomes so when the 'price is right'.

Now as I mentioned earlier, Greene et al (pdf!) have done some interesting heavy duty scenario based modelling in which they take sets of assumptions derived from Campbell et al and those derived from sources that Odell, McCabe et al would prefer to believe and comparatively model them. They do this without reference to geological constraints (especially, without using Hubbert curves or similar methods) but instead use models based on R/P ratios and so on, of the sort Odell seems to prefer, with a range of a dozen demand scenarios, including Odell's 2% limit.

Using this approach, based on Cambell's pessimistic reserve data we get a peak for non-Middle East oil before 2010 but interestingly, the mean values using two mainstream data sets (Rogner and USGS) for non-Middle East conventional oil peak at best a couple of decades later, from 2010-2040.

They also conclude that non-conventional oil must start coming rapidly online, in the median scenarios by about 2020. This is where technological optimism of the sort Odell implicitly assumes regarding non-conventional supplies becomes really quite important. If we're talking, as the Greene models suggest about a 7-9% per annum transition to non-conventional starting around 2020. If Middle East conventional remains dominant into the 2050s, I can forsee a number of possible concerns about price and supply in relation to demand, even if demand remains relatively modest at Odell's 2%.

As you may be aware, I'm particularly concerned about the impact of even small changes in price and availability over the long term, because of their effects on our global food systems. So for me, this is still rather worrying.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Selected quotes from Greene's conclusions

Apologies for the cut and paste here, but the paper I've linked above is long and quite technical, so I thought it would be useful to extract some key points from its conclusions (page 55)

The results presented here strongly suggest that it is not too soon to begin analyzing potential transitions from conventional oil and considering whether more desirable alternatives may be achievable. <snip>

If present energy use trends continue (as represented by the High Growth and Reference scenarios), unless the best available estimates of world conventional and unconventional resources as well as the representation of uncertainty in these estimates are very seriously in error, a major transition from conventional to unconventional oil will begin before 2030. If the resource estimates based on Rogner (1997) or those based on the USGS 2000 survey are used, peaking of non-Middle Eastern conventional oil production is likely sometime between 2010 and 2030. If the lowest resource estimates are correct, the transition is already underway. The key determining factors of the date of peak production are how much conventional oil remains to be discovered and how quickly reserves can expand. The peaking of conventional oil production is only a part of this equation. Under a wide range of assumptions the rate of growth in world conventional oil production will slow substantially after 2020 if it does not decline. In order for oil consumption to continue to increase at substantial rates, the Middle East region must rapidly expand production or production of oil from unconventional resources must be greatly expanded. The implication is that under almost any assumptions, it is not too soon to consider whether this transition is desirable and to evaluate the risks and opportunities it presents. <snip>

The transition to unconventional oil will be rapid if the growth of oil consumption continues at current rates or rates projected through 2020 by the Energy Information Administration or the IEA. Rates of growth in unconventional oil supply of 7-9%/yr. appear necessary as the peak in non-Middle East oil production is approached. The transition could be greatly slowed and substantial development of shale oil resources avoided if the growth of world oil consumption could be curbed by 2020. If the pessimistic assessment of world unconventional resources proves to be correct, the transition to unconventional oil will be rapid but limited and short lived, and largely ineffective in preventing a supply-constrained downturn in oil consumption. <snip>

It appears that the market dominance of MEA oil producers is robust to a wide range of alternative demand and resource availability scenarios. This is evidenced by their ability to maintain market shares in the vicinity of 30 to 50 percent over the entire 50-year period in all scenarios and variants. Moreover, the Middle East will remain the lowest cost supplier of oil. While the emergence of large-scale unconventional oil production could put a cap on longrun oil prices, with the majority of the world's proved conventional reserves Middle East producers will have the ability to temporarily raise or lower world oil prices throughout the period. <snip>

Finally, although this analysis has nothing to say about this issue, short-term fluctuations in oil prices could very well obscure the long-term signal. It could be that markets will not see potentially disruptive turning points coming. These turning points could require extremely rapid increases in the production of alternative energy sources or major reductions in demand. In the long run, markets will sort this out. However, the short-run disruptions could be very expensive.

 

[Slash]

And now for some light relief... has anybody seen the film "I heart huckabees"? Was just reading the Grauniad review of it and noticed this:

But Wahlberg is the biggest surprise of all. The former rapper is altogether hilarious as the fireman obsessed with fossil fuels. Particularly enjoyable are the scenes where Wahlberg and Schwartzman smash each other in the face with red rubber balloons in an effort to bring "reality" into closer focus.

Sounds fascinating - in the film his character is concerned that most of the ills of the world stem from our misuse of petroleum. The school of Hubbert does Hollywood?

Review here.

 

[Dr Jon]

And for another diversion on the energy theme, I just spotted this interesting quote from India's rocket scientist President:

The moon contains 10 times more energy in the form of Helium 3 than all the fossil fuels on the Earth

Nice idea, except that a reactor which could use it is at least 30 years away...

Taylor echoed Lawrence's views adding that there were no funds available for funding non-petroleum energy projects in the United States.

He warned of the exhaustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas on Earth.

"By 2050 the whole world will have a major problem. We need to be thinking ahead," Taylor said.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It is quite possible that the whole world will have a major problem by 2050.

If Campbell and co are correct, that problem is likely to arise sooner and be extremely severe. Even if we take the more conservative figures provided by Greene et. al. above, I think we're arguably in fairly serious trouble anyway.

Look at it this way, according to Greene et. al. with the exception of Middle East sources, conventional oil production will have peaked by mid century.

That means the shortfall, given even moderate demand scenarios, will need to be made up a) by increased Middle East production, b) by rapidly bringing online non-conventional sources which are largely unproven, both in terms of the size of viable reserves and in terms of technical production challenges, c) rapid introduction of alternative energy systems many of which are again technically challenging to implement on that scale and many of which have significant land and other resource requirements conflicting with those of agriculture.

Current political trends however tend to indicate that the demand scenarios won't be moderate, that the Middle East will continue to be destabilised and that the degradation of agricultural land and water resources will continue to increase rapidly. So even if Campbell and co are unduly pessimistic, we're looking at some pretty unpleasant alternatives if we don't change course ...

And that's without taking global climate change effects into account.

 

[Slash]

Oil at the box office again!

Check it out, it looks like a worthy project... and their means of sourcing funding is quite novel!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

ASPO December:

pdf: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter48.pdf

Word: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter48.doc

-

Eyeballing Shell in Nigeria:

Nigerian community claims seven killed at protest on Shell oil rig

OJOBO, Nigeria (AFX) - Grieving relatives in the Niger Delta jungle river port of Ojobo have accused Nigerian soldiers of shooting dead seven unarmed demonstrators during a community protest on an oil rig operated for the Anglo-Dutch energy giant Royal Dutch/Shell Group.

The managing director of Shell's Nigerian arm SPDC, Basil Omiyi, told Agence France-Presse that an initial Shell inquiry had not found any evidence of fatalities and that he would be 'extremely surprised if anyone had died', but that the firm will revisit the matter and he would welcome an independent investigation

Nigerian senators threaten Shell

Nigeria's Senate is to consider sanctions against a unit of oil company Shell for failing to pay a $1.5bn (£775m) pollution penalty.

The firm had been told to make the payment by 23 November for alleged environmental damage caused by oil spillage in the Niger Delta region.

The Senate is now to examine recommendations for penalties.

 

[bigfish]

The future revisited from a past that never happened

http://www.williambowles.info/index.html

The truth about ‘Peak Oil’
by William Bowles • 6 December 2004

Strange how things connect but I was in the middle of writing this piece on the ‘Peak Oil’ scam when Pluto Books sent me a book to review, a new edition of ‘A Century of War’ sub-titled ‘Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order’ by William Engdahl, which fortuitously sets the stage for unpacking the illusion that is ‘Peak Oil’. I plan to write a complete review of the book shortly but just dipping into it reveals the absolute centrality of oil to the Anglo-American empire for the past century or more, that in turn goes a long way toward explaining why the corporate press shit a brick every time the subject of oil and USUK policy in the Middle East comes up and why they relegate the subject to ‘conspiracy corner’ with an indecent haste.

The issue for most of us is how to disentangle the bullshit from the real deal for as Engdahl’s book makes perfectly plain, since the dying days of the 19th century, a handful of corporations along with literally a handful of individuals in key positions in the US and UK governments have played the planet and its resources, to use their words, as a part of “The Great Game” and they’ve played the same ‘Game’ through four successive generations! They have moreover, gotten away with it largely because—with the complicity of the media—the machinations of immensely wealthy and powerful people has remained hidden from public view and their actions obscured by a sophisticated process of disinformation, ‘Peak Oil’ being latest in a long line of lies about the reasons behind the policies of the US and the UK.[1]
...
[T]he illusion of Peak Oil is extremely persistent especially and disappointingly so on the part of a segment of the ‘Left’. So what prompts the ‘Peak Oil’ idea to be accepted by a section of the Left? Partly I think it stems from wishful thinking in a misguided attempt to attack the insanity of unrestrained capitalist growth (about which there can be no doubt). It’s also an extremely simplistic answer to a complex problem and, perhaps most depressing of all, it plays into the hands of those in the developed world who think that development is something reserved solely for those who already have it, hence the associated ideas of ‘over-population’ and that of ‘rationing’ energy use. How many times do we hear the cry about ‘what happens when the Chinese all have cars and refrigerators?’ like these are things only we in the West have the right to possess (at least in large numbers).
...
Not surprisingly, the environmental movement has taken the Peak Oil myth onboard big time as it fits well with the idea that the problem resides with ‘over-population’ in the poor countries of the world and over-consumption in the rich countries, not that the rich world doesn’t over-consume but as with all single issue campaigns the purely environmental approach is reductionist for it omits all references to political economy and the need for an alternate and rational approach to resource distribution and allocation.

Note:

The place where metaphysical "market economics and pseudo-science reach mutual accommodation, more or less, in references to capacity constraint, demand growth, and accelerating consumption" is called "Peak Oil". "Peak Oil" is nothing more than pure propaganda manufactured by the Western oil giants. The two current darlings of the "Peak Oil" lobby, petro-geologists Colin Cambell and Jean Laherrère, for example, both work[ed] for the very secretive Petro Consultants, based in Geneva, ownership of which traces back to the Thyssen-Bornemisza Group (with likely Rockefeller influence). "During World War II, the Thyssen family managed to balance its support for Hitler, through investment ties with U.S. finance capital, thanks to some highly clandestine banking arrangements" involving Prescott Bush, a Rockefeller banking factotum and the grandfather of the current president. Meanwhile, alongside "fossil" fuel experts like Campbell and Laherrère, the British section of the financially powerful Astor family appears to have significant involvement in the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) based in Britain.

Perhaps the loudest and most hysterical purveyor of the "Peak Oil" doomsday scenario is Mike Ruppert's From The Wilderness site. However, if one takes a closer look, behind the well polished veneer you will find that Ruppert et al are busy peddling a Malthusian agenda. The notion that oil is a finite resource, set soon to "PEAK" and thereafter grow ever scarcer, while the global human population at the same time just keeps on multiplying, is a complete pack of lies from beginning to end. The purpose of these lies is to provide a crude rational for American military expansion Eastward and the hideous human slaughter it will entail.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

From the quoted article:

This I not to say that at some point in the future (around a 100 years or so) we couldn’t use it all up but by then one would assume that by then alternative energy sources will be developed (a reasonable assumption when one looks at history of energy sources: —> wood —> coal —> oil).

Based on this comment alone, you will have to forgive me if I conclude that Mr. Bowles and his opinions, assumptions and emotive language are not worth the vapor resulting from Mr. Rupperts micturition. I suggest Mr. Bowles pays a little attention to what Prof. Smalley has to say.

That aside, let us assume - for the sake of argument - that the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon production is, in fact, totally correct and ignore for a moment the points regarding replenishment ratios so eloquently made by Bernie above.

Where does this leave us?

What purpose - and who's interests - does it serve to argue that there are not and will not be for the forseeable future any problems with supply contraints?

Does presenting a case that 'there is no depletion problem' make it more likely that we start creating the networks and infrastructure necessary for making the transition towards more sustainable, socially cohesive and environmentally benign ways of living?

No. It does, however, provide proponents of 'Business as Usual' with a useful tool to confuse and obfuscate any debate regarding the direction we should be moving in.

What I'm saying is that even if Campbell et al base their arguments on a fallacy, the resulting concern and impetus for change with regard to our resource consumption habits are of net benefit (WRT global climate change and my own topsoil-loving agrarian agenda).

That said, I still find it difficult to reconcile the idea of abiotic production with the hard data regarding depletion, unless you wish to suggest that the US/UK deliberately constrained their domestic production in order to provide Our Leaders with a kind of deep, deep psyop justification for the invasion of Iraq...

-

Having just spent the weekend planting trees and digging the beds over, personally I'm more worried about soil erosion. I reckon I could just about 'survive' without hydrocarbon energy... so long as I've got topsoil!

 

[bigfish]

Based on this comment alone, you will have to forgive me if I conclude that Mr. Bowles and his opinions, assumptions and emotive language are not worth the vapor resulting from Mr. Rupperts micturition. I suggest Mr. Bowles pays a little attention to what Prof. Smalley has to say.

Mr Ruppert in winter? - I think it would make an amusing Xmas Card, don't you? (In case anyone doesn’t know what micturation is, it’s more commonly known as: taking a piss.)

I’ll read Professor Smalley later, thanks BB.. any particular observations I should look out for, or should I just plough through the entire site?

That aside, let us assume - for the sake of argument - that the abiotic theory of hydrocarbon production is, in fact, totally correct and ignore for a moment the points regarding replenishment ratios so eloquently made by Bernie above.

Where does this leave us?

What purpose - and who's interests - does it serve to argue that there are not and will not be for the forseeable future any problems with supply contraints?

Well, obviously, the oil companies, who else could it benefit? But, in any case, what about the oil depletion propaganda – who's behind that do you think? You don't suppose it could be the oil companies do you? Lets face it, they’ve been at it for years!

Note:“Every ten or fifteen years since the late 1800’s, ‘experts’ have predicted that oil reserves would last only ten more years. These experts have predicted nine out of the last zero oil-reserve exhaustions.” C. Maurice and C. Smithson, Doomsday Mythology: 10,000 Years of Economic Crisis, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1984.

Does presenting a case that 'there is no depletion problem' make it more likely that we start creating the networks and infrastructure necessary for making the transition towards more sustainable, socially cohesive and environmentally benign ways of living?

As you imply, NO, it does not. But, just a minute, who are WE? You mean we don’t live in a class society anymore?

No. It does, however, provide proponents of 'Business as Usual' with a useful tool to confuse and obfuscate any debate regarding the direction we should be moving in.

Yes, it does, and every revolution I can think of that was propelled by the ideals of progress (and tell me one that wasn't), has also fallen into the hands of the ruling classes.

What I'm saying is that even if Campbell et al base their arguments on a fallacy, the resulting concern and impetus for change with regard to our resource consumption habits are of net benefit (WRT global climate change and my own topsoil-loving agrarian agenda).

NOTE: “with regard to OUR resource consumption habits” – presumably, what you mean here is the high-consumption industrialized populations/billions surviving in utter misery in the Third World/enormous wastage of resources syndrome that humanity is suffering from.

That said, I still find it difficult to reconcile the idea of abiotic production with the hard data regarding depletion, unless you wish to suggest that the US/UK deliberately constrained their domestic production in order to provide Our Leaders with a kind of deep, deep psyop justification for the invasion of Iraq...

N.B. Even without the abiotic assumptions regarding future oil supplies, present reserves are immense (see what Peter Odell has to say on this) and technological developments have already reduced per capita usage in the developed countries (and continue to do so), where the high consumption part of the syndrome referred to above is most prevalent. It may have occurred to you that the oil corporations probably know more about the truth here than most of us do. For a while in the 1970/80s they started buying up coal resources, perhaps because they were thinking of exploiting the coal-to-oil process, so successfully developed in South Africa, but they seem to have sold most of these off since. There could be all sorts of reasons for that, of course.. And lets face it, the oil corporations have been cursing the Arabs for decades and looking around the world for the same length of time for alternatives, quite successfully – Arabian oil is cheap, though. Meanwhile, the US military/intelligence nexus began focusing on an enemy to replace the Soviet Union as early as the 1970s and homed in on “Arab terrorism”. Why would they want an enemy? Because America is RUN by an oil fueled military-industrial complex which seeks to shape the world in its own image. That surely has something to do with the war against Iraq.

Having just spent the weekend planting trees and digging the beds over, personally I'm more worried about soil erosion. I reckon I could just about 'survive' without hydrocarbon energy... so long as I've got topsoil!

Good for you – sounds nice!

 

[Good Intentions]

Coal to liquid fuel is very interesting, but I doubt its ultimate effectiveness. Once again its a matter of whether this solution can take up the slack.

The good news is that it is a very clean technology - all the emmisions are water vapour or equilly safe, sulphur and other heavy metals inherent in the process are seperated in solid form by the process itself. It is infinitely cleaner than using straight coal. If you have an abundance of coal, it is very cheap.
The bad news is that if you don't have an abundance of coal, it is simply impossible. It is, of course, non-renewable. And the capital outlay required is enormous.

SASOL, the world leader in the field, is based and extremely poriftable here in South Africa. SA is, however, the most coal-rich country in the world (coal per square km) and here Sasol is merely another competitor. The capital required is immense, the technology existant but expensive - even a small plant, like the one at Sasolburg, is huge. The question is how much coal one would need to make up how much oil demand. I couldn't find that in my quick search, nor did I find a good critique of its long-term viability, but here's some papers I did find. The Yale-Global one (the first one) seems the most interesting.

Strategy for an energy-starved world

Coal to liquid fuel offers answer to energy woes

Coal as an energy source

I personally would like to see us move away from hydrocarbons as soon as we can. The longer we stay commited to a solution with no chance of a sustained future, the harder it will be to adapt when we must. Concidering this thread, that is an understatement.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think it's important to distinguish between quantitative modelling of resource depletion scenarios and various neo-malthusian political interpretations of those scenarios, whether they're right wing or eco-mystical. It's perfectly possible to take the former seriously, without subscribing to the latter at all.

I think the question of how the two interact is quite an interesting one, so much so that I started a thread about it over here

 

[TrueStory]

US School defends slavery booklet

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1913619p-8258411c.html

Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures."

Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.

 

[sparticus]

Whilst Peak Oil may or may not be all that it is being described to be and certainly provides another good reason why we need to move beyond carbon fuels, I have recently had 2 reasons to call into question who and what peak oil is all about (the real reasons to move from carbon fuels are the very real dangers of severe abrupt climate change and the oil curse in general IMO)

Firstly the association of the Peak Oil theory (ASPO were in the credits) with Wednesday's bizarre faux terror docudrama on BBC2 (9-1030). I thought I was on acid as I see Blair, Brown and BBC and other news media acting out a scenario whereby an alQ attack on a saudi oil refinery results in economic meltdown on the back of dodgy city dealing. (too bizarre to describe, you had to see it. Did anyone?)

Secondly, Peak Oil's chief cheerleader Mike Ruppert's (From the wilderness) attack on many of the principle 9/11 researchers and the subsequent discrediting of M Ruppert (atleast in my eyes). For those not familiar with 9/11 truth movement inner politics Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz's (www.oilempire.us) have been causing major mischief within the movement. They link 9/11 closely with peak oil and dismiss and attack those who question their world view both on Peak Oil and 9/11

Any way the long and short of what I'm saying is that ASPO's association with the BBC docudrama and Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz's recent attacks on sections of the 9/11 truth movement, lead me to question (even more strongly than I had before) who is putting forward the Peak Oil theory and for what ends.

I follow this thread carefully. Peak Oil is not an open and shut case either way IMO, but the recent actions of some of its chief proponents make me question whether peak oil is not the latest cunning ruse of the oil pirates to seed fear, derail genuine 9/11 truth and boost oil prices.

Does anyone share these doubts?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Ahhh ... so *that's* what's going on. I'd been wondering ... thanks sparticus.

So let me get this clear. It would appear that a massive shit-fight among some rival sects of 911 conspiracy theorists has spilled over onto this issue?

Gee thanks guys, that should *really* help people to approach it rationally.

 

[bigfish]

Ahhh ... so *that's* what's going on. I'd been wondering ... thanks sparticus.

So let me get this clear. It would appear that a massive shit-fight among some rival sects of 911 conspiracy theorists has spilled over onto this issue?

Gee thanks guys, that should *really* help people to approach it rationally.

No, what is really going on Bernie, is that the PetroConsultants "Peak Oil" study carried out by Colin Cambell and Jean Leherrere (the starting point of this thread which YOU began) has been exposed as pseudo-science by Michael Lynch and Peter Odell, two of the worlds leading oil-economists. As far as I am aware neither of these two gentlemen has anything to do with the 9/11 Truth movement - unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Do you?

 

[sparticus]

Ahhh ... so *that's* what's going on. I'd been wondering ... thanks sparticus.

So let me get this clear. It would appear that a massive shit-fight among some rival sects of 911 conspiracy theorists has spilled over onto this issue?

Gee thanks guys, that should *really* help people to approach it rationally.

No, that's not what I was saying Bernie. I assume you are familiar with
1) ASPO
2) Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz

I was saying that 2 of the principle proponents of Peak Oil have both this last week been involved in pushing some pretty dodgy disinformation/propoganda. In ASPO's case their association with BBC2's outrageous docudrama http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1366651,00.html and in Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz's cases by their outrageous behaviour amongst 9/11 truth activists. But given the 2 MR's belief that 9/11 was an inside job and was linked to the peak oil issue, you probably wouldn't have considered them to be most trustworthy proponents of peak oil in any case even before their recent attacks on other 9/11 activists.

I hope that has cleared up what I was saying. The post was about the creditability of certain peak oil proponents and not about 9/11 (except by association).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sparticus, from my own perspective, this Mike Ruppert appears to be some sort of 911 conspiracy theorist who uses the work of people like the ASPO as part of his creative process. So I'm unlikely to be interested one way or the other in him or any fights he gets into with other sects of 911 buffs. Except perhaps insofar as it affects by association the credibility of serious inquiries into sustainability. I made the comments that I did because when I'd googled for some scientific info on abiogenic oil, figuring I should get my head around the arguments, a whole lot of the links that came up were 911 conspiracy sites, which set my alarm bells ringing. Your comments about Ruppert vs other 911 theorists helped me to make some sense of why that should be the case, for which I thank you.

The ASPO are a group of largely professionally qualified people who are trying to publicise some concerns they have about fossil fuel depletion, especially in relation to growing demand. So I have a lot more time for them than I do for Ruppert. I don't claim that they have any sort of monopoly on truth however.

They represent one point of view among those qualified to comment, people like Odell and McCabe represent a different point of view. I would recommend the paper by Greene I linked above where both groups' favoured assumptions are modelled over a range of demand scenarios, for a balanced comparison.

I don't know the circumstances of their involvement in the BBC programme, and I didn't watch the programme. My guess is that adzp might have some information on the matter. It doesn't appear that they played a key role.

I am not particularly convinced by some of the reasoning that I've seen here around who is and who isn't a vehicle for disinformation serving the interests of clandestine powers though. My view is that life is too short to pursue stuff that's so heavily swamped with disinformation from several sides that you'll never get to the bottom of it or derive any sort of useful understanding from it.

Science on the other hand is checkable in principle and is ultimately pretty hard to falsify convincingly. It might not always be easy to reach a definite conclusion right now, but you at least have a fighting chance of doing so eventually, and of deriving some kind of useful understanding from the effort.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I know it's a cheap shot, but this didn't half make me chuckle, Bigfish...

..exposed as pseudo-science by Michael Lynch and Peter Odell, two of the worlds leading oil-economists.

...sorry!

[As a side note, I would be interested to know exactly what Ruppert has said to upset you so much - I've usually found his sourcing and documentation to be pretty reliable. Is it an 'abiotic' thing or a 'pod' thing? - maybe start a thread if you can get it past the censors. ]
-

Anyway, some news regarding Yukos:

Russian oil firm Yukos files for US bankruptcy protection

MOSCOW (AFP) - Russian oil company Yukos said it had filed for US bankruptcy protection to prevent the auction of its main asset Yuganskeneftegaz, in a statement from Houston, Texas.

Yukos, accusing Russian authorities of illegal action against it, said it had asked US legal authorities to block the sale of Yuganskeneftegaz due on December 19 arguing that this would "cause it immediate and irreparable harm".

The company said it had asked the court for an emergency hearing and a temporary restraining order.

It wanted a preliminary injunction to halt the sale and to compel the Russian authorities to arbitrate the company's claims of billions of dollars in damages.

Not quite sure about the technicalities of how a Russian(?) company can seek bankruptcy protection in the US... But is it a 'Russian' company? Hmmm...

Crude price just tipped $42 again - apparently, it's due to 'cold weather'. Like winter came as a surprise or something.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Shell just slashed their reported reserves by another 10% (in addition to the 23% previously reported).

Like they care...

Profits are up 48%!, and a whopping 133% for the last quarter.

Puts into perspective the £82.7M it paid out in fines last September 'for violating market rules in its reporting of its reserves.'

So what does this latest cut in reported 'proven' reserves do to their 'reserve replacement ratio' (The amound 'discovered' in relation to the amount 'produced')?

Shell said it had replaced only 15 percent to 25 percent of the oil it pulled from the ground in 2004. Rivals such as Britain's BP PLC and U.S. giant Exxon Mobil Corp. have reserves replacement ratios of more than 100 percent.

here

Now - the question in my mind at present is whether Exxon are subject to the same scrutiny from the SEC as Shell... IIRC there was something about the top US listed companies having some sort of 'immunity' from the SEC auditing requirements. Anyone?

-

Just as a reminder:

Down on the record highs of October ($55), but still buping along, threatening to hit $50 again.

A couple of ASPO newsletters:

Jan 2005:

pdf: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter49.pdf
Word: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter49.doc

Feb 2005:

pdf: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter50.pdf
Word: http://216.187.75.220/newsletter50.doc

And a quick edit to add an article from 'In These Times' - The Axis of Oil

India has invested more than $3 billion in global exploration ventures and has said it will continue to spend $1 billion a year on more acquisitions. China, which has already invested about $15 billion in foreign oil fields, is expected to spend 10 times more over the next decade.

The motive, says Zheng Hongfei, an energy researcher at the Beijing Institute of Technology, is that “there is just not enough oil in the world” to cover China’s and India’s growing energy needs...

..Optimists—mostly people from the corporate world such as Warren Buffet—say such common opportunity will lead to greater cooperation rather than competition between the West and China and India. But pessimists—mostly people from the security establishment—fear that China and India, two energy-hungry giants seeking access to limited world resources, will inevitably clash with the West.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

...and an update on the Yukos thing:

China backed Yukos sale

China has helped the Kremlin sidestep a US bankruptcy court by providing an indirect loan to a state-run oil company that acquired the biggest production unit of embattled oil giant Yukos, analysts said yesterday.

Speculation has been rife as to how Rosneft was able to fund its $9.3bn (£5bn) purchase of Yukos' Yuganskneftegaz unit, which was sold on December 19 at a disputed government auction despite a US bankruptcy court order.

-

Other notes:

Exxon made profits of $25bn (£13bn) last year - 'the highest profits in the company's history'.

and

The US dollars recent slight recovery against the Euro seems to be flattening out. http://www.ecb.int/stats/exchange/eurofxref/html/eurofxref-graph-usd.en.html

 

[The Oracle]

I think the current targeting of Iran has something to do with the U.S. positioning for the control of worlds remaining oil reserves.

It’s possible that Iran would like to conserve their oil reserves and position themselves for a sustainable future and this could be the real reason for wanting to build a nuclear power plant.

The IAEA is working with Iran to prove to the international community and in particular the U.S. that Iran does not have intentions to build nuclear weapons.
This is not what the U.S. wants to hear and has been working behind the scenes to undermine Director General Mohamed ElBaradei going so far as trying to have him replaced and tapping his phone conversations.

 

[bigfish]

Japan outbids China for Siberian pipeline

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/pipe-f14.shtml

By John Chan
14 February 2005

Russia signed an agreement with Japanese interests on December 30 for the construction of a 4,130 kilometre oil pipeline from Taishet in eastern Siberia to Nakhodka, a port city on the Pacific coast opposite Japan. The agreement was regarded in Tokyo as a political coup. For well over a year, the government of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has sought to outbid a rival pipeline plan that would have transported Russian oil to China.

At a cost of estimated $16 billion, the Pacific pipeline will be able to transport 80 million tonnes of crude oil every year from Siberia to Japan, and potentially to the west coast of North America. The pipeline, which will be constructed by the state-owned Russian monopoly Transneft, will go through Kazachinskoye, Tynda, Skovorodino and Khabarovsk, to the Perevoznaya Bay oil terminal in Nakhodka.

A shorter, and far cheaper, route had been proposed by China. In partnership with the Russian oil giant Yukos, Beijing offered to finance a pipeline from Angarsk in Siberia to Daqing, a major city in China’s north eastern provinces—a centre of energy and heavy industry.

Russia initially agreed to put $2 billion toward the Chinese project. Construction of the pipeline was scheduled to begin in 2003. It was projected by 2005 to be capable of transporting 20 million tonnes of crude oil annually.

 

[The Oracle]

Anyone know of any good discussions regarding what to do about depleting energy reserves?

An idea I have been contemplating the feasibility of is to modify exercise equipment to generate electricity that could be used to create hydrogen for on site storage. Not sure how much hydrogen could be created from a days exercise.

The BBC radio program “One World” has covered some good ideas, such as seed or plant production as renewable sources of energy.

 

[The Oracle]

What are the consensuses on this theory?

Federal Triangle: Petroleum—A Renewable Resource?
By Barry Ashby

It seems many geologists are being petty, arguing over facts that have yet to yield answers about crude oil. The mid July 04 Hedberg Conference by American Association of Petroleum Geologists again discussed biogenic versus abiotic origins of hydrocarbons, an interesting and very significant industrial issue. At current rates of world consumption (over 26 billion barrels a year) and with 80% coming from fields discovered before 1973, end of supply is always a concern because proven reserves are only 1,213 billion barrels, 75% of which is in 370 fields worldwide. It is projected that production rates will peak in 2037 unless new reserves are found and sharply decline thereafter.

Then along comes Dr. Thomas Gold, professor emeritus at Cornell and an astronomer no less, who says not to worry. Petroleum is a renewable resource made deep in the earth by inorganic processes (abiotic — an idea first proposed by Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov in 1757 who called it “rock oil”) and does not come from piles of dead dinosaurs and fermenting leaves (biogenic). The conventional wisdom of petroleum geologists has been offended and most of them are steamed.

continued...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

What are the consensuses on this theory?

It was discussed on the previous page, but I'll just quickly outline why I personally reject it as an argument against 'worrying about peak oil'.

Assuming the abiotic theory is correct for a moment, in that reservoirs replenish themselves, the rate of replenishment must be so low as to have no bearing on 'peak oil' - as can be seen from historical data (e.g. US production peaking in the '70s).

It is also worth remembering that while doubtless there are fantastic quantities of hydrocarbons that remain untapped, they will remain untapped, because it requires more energy to recover than can be recovered from it (EROEI).

-

Anyway, here's one version of the arguments against: ABIOTIC OIL: POLITICS OR SCIENCE? - Ugo Bardi

In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).

And for: The scientist upon whose work much of the theory is based: Dr. Thomas Gold (quoted in your article, but does not say 'not to worry'. He supports only the 'weak' theory).

-

It was suggested to me the other day that it all fits rather too well with the agenda of certain religious extremists who might like to see the word 'fossil' banished from the lexicon for good.

 

[bigfish]

Reports: Indians Offer $25Bln in Investments

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/02/24/041.html

India has offered the government the prospect of $25 billion in investments into Russia's oil and gas industry as New Delhi seeks to secure supplies and a stake in Yuganskneftegaz, Russia's two leading business dailies reported Tuesday.

If the mammoth investment ever materializes, it will be the single largest foreign investment in the Russian economy.

India's Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry made the proposal in a letter sent to Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov last week, Vedomosti said, citing a government official.

Kommersant reported that Indian Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar presented the investment offer to Russian officials as part of India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corp.'s attempt to purchase a stake in Yugansk.

Aiyar held talks in Moscow with Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and Rosneft President Sergei Bogdanchikov on Monday and Tuesda

 

[bigfish]

It was suggested to me the other day that it all fits rather too well with the agenda of certain religious extremists who might like to see the word 'fossil' banished from the lexicon for good.

Religious extremists aren't the only ones who would like to see this happen:

The End of Fossil Fuels

The End

With a title like The End of Fossil Fuels you may think that this is an article about alternative energy or "free" energy, but alas, it is not. It is an attempt to describe the inadequacy of the term "fossil fuel" and to prevent its further usage in the English language through education in the mysteries of the hydrocarbon structures in the earth. I can't blame people for having used this misleading phrase, being guilty myself. We are regularly taught such misconceptions in school. But one should always be ready to learn new ideas and concepts, especially once the evidence is investigated.

The term "fossil fuel" is a standard phrase used in reference to hydrocarbons in their various permutations as petroleum, coals, and natural gas. The argument to be presented here is that hydrocarbon deposits are not "fossilized carbon" at all in the sense implied in the modern usage of that term, that there is a larger "carbon dynamic" eventuating in the earth process. The standard response to this is "well, they FIND fossils in the deposits". This is scientific fact and will not be disputed, fossils certainly are found in SOME deposits, many of them being quite curious--coal balls and roof balls--and will be discussed in turn as they will further our argument. There are also serious fossil anomalies, evidences of human intelligence which crop up in various coal beds supposedly laid down hundreds of millions of years before humans are supposed to have existed. But we will first look at the hydrocarbon structures themselves.

 

[kropotkin]

Hello there.
I've been pointing a knowledgeable friend towards the Peak Oil stuff, and he recently sent me this email- thought you might be interested…

Dear X

Firstly I'd like to thank you for the excellent balanced lecture you
gave to the Energy Policy Option at Imperial College last Monday.
Everything that you spoke about made sense to me within the context of
the current oil market and today's pertinent issues. However, as a
diligent student of environmental technology I returned to those
publications that had alarmed me before your lecture, and for different
reasons. Amongst the large body of work that is routinely produced
today to wake the public from their oil-dependent reverie, I am
constantly referred to the work of Dr Colin Campbell, a respected
oil-industry veteran. I am sure that you are more than aware of the work
of Dr Campbell and that his peak oil studies predict that we are about
to begin the downward slope oil production. This peak does not include
unconventional oils as it assumes that these are not only limited but
will never be financially viable. It also relies heavily on some
estimates of total world oil availability, even stating that the reasons
for past upward revisions of total resources do not apply to today's
estimates, though without establishing evidence for this. Several other
of his assertions can also be countered with arguments given during your
lecture.

What concerns me is that I have not been able to find any academic or
balanced critiques of Dr Campbell and his doomsday scenario. From your
lecture I understand that it should not be taken for granted that
current high prices and low rates of discovery indicate imminence of
peak production. Are you able to point out to me any published
articles/books/papers that further substantiate your suggestion that
whilst we are heading for a period of high prices and apparent shortage,
this will likely be improved by future investment in capacity, political
resolutions, energy-restructuring in China and economic adjustment to
absorb higher prices? Also, I would appreciate your opinion on the work
of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and the way in which you
would suggest I approach there work. I am aware that their work is now
being used for modelling purposes by the US Department of Energy.

I hope you do not mind my emailing you with this enquiry,

Many thanks

XX

He got this reply back

Subject: Re: Query from Imperial MSc student

The attached says it all about Campbell who in my circles is most
defiinitely NOT "respected"! As to more detailed rebuttals I suggest
you search for material authored by Mike Lynch and also Peter MCCabe.


Professor X
Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy
University of Dundee
Dundee DD1 4HN
Dundee
UK

The attached article was this

"Study Says World Oil Output will Peak in 1999"
The News
Mexico City's English-language newspaper
April 1, 1994.

OPEC News Agency

GENEVA -- "World oil production will peak in 1999 at 65.6 million barrels a day (bpd) and then decline to 52.6 million bpd in 2010, according to a study by .

By the year 2001 half of the world's presently known reserves will have been consumed and production will have fallen to 17.5 million bpd by 2050 -- almost the same level as in the 1950s, the study says.

The study, an oil depletion model, says that the midpoint of depletion, which has been passed or is fast approaching from most countries and for the world as a whole will be a critical turning point.

It asserts that major fields are found early, which gives a means of determining what remains to be found, whether that is calculated by special techniques and discovery patterns or based on intuitive or empiric judgement by experienced explorers.

"What matters is not so much the number itself but the acceptance of the concept that there is an end point to production and that the laws of nature impose a decline to oil fields ... " it points out.

The combination of the natural and inevitable decline of existing fields and the dwindling discovery rate means that production must begin to fall worldwide, as it demonstrably has in mature countries such as the United States.

The six Middle East Gulf producers have a unique endowment due to particular geological circumstances and are not remotely representative of the wider picture, it asserts.

For the present, cheap oil which was found long ago, sustains the world, coming increasingly from the Gulf producers.

As the supply of oil falls, the price will undoubtedly rise, assuming no radical diminution of demand.

At higher prices the boundary between the conventional oil, as considered in the study, and the unconventional will move, releasing more oil towards the latter end of the depletion cycle.

While that may lead to an upward revision in the value of the ultimate recovery, by then most of the world's endowment will have been consumed, and certainly all of its cheap oil, it says.

"Understanding depletion is critical to economic forecasting not only by the oil industry, but for businesses and government institutions everywhere seeking to chart their opportunities in a fast changing world, which with dwindling oil supplies will be a very different one from that we have known and come to assume," the study said.

The study divides the world into eight geographic regions."

The News, April 1, 1994, page 2