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

[Dr Jon]

How The Global Oil Watchdog Failed Its Mission

 

[Crispy]

How The Global Oil Watchdog Failed Its Mission

Good piece. It's a sordid little story isn't it? Can't tell the world it's about to be in trouble, that would put the world in trouble!

 

[Dr Jon]

Yeah. Hardly surprising that they want to keep business-as-usual tottering along for as long as possible - like we're seeing with that other unsustainable scam, banking & finance.

 

[kyser_soze]

So, 3 years, 6 months and 5 days to go til Peak Oil year then.

Someone should write a 'Countdown Timer' for it - like the ones for when pubescent popstrels are due to hit 16.

 

[ferrelhadley]

So, 3 years, 6 months and 5 days to go til Peak Oil year then.

Someone should write a 'Countdown Timer' for it - like the ones for when pubescent popstrels are due to hit 16.

 

[kyser_soze]

Sorry, I don't understand your meaning in that post. Perhaps you should use words.

 

[kyser_soze]

LO! There is one:

http://www.peakoilstories.com/peak_oil_countdown_clock.htm

 

[Dr Jon]

Matt Simmons reckons we peaked in 2005

link

 

[goebfwai]

Yeah, it's either all downhill or all uphill from here. I've always suspected - Hollywood style - somebody like NASA or the Pentagon will pull some miracle new cheap energy technology out of the hat just in the nick of time. We can live in hope.

 

[elbows]

Good piece. It's a sordid little story isn't it? Can't tell the world it's about to be in trouble, that would put the world in trouble!

Yeah I enjoyed that piece, nice to see this side of the story laid out clearly. Ive said before that its a pretty damning evidence of the 'wisdom of markets' that they are better able to absorb ideas about climate change than peak oil. I suppose markets could be allowed to handle the truth about things if only they were not given such prominence in our system that they become too big to be allowed to fall dramatically in step with reality.

Meanwhile it seems that some of the words Obama is spouting in the face of the Gulf oil leak crisis can be related to peak oil transition agendas, so I will start to post them here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38458_Page3.html

Obama talked about America’s dependence on fossil fuels and how we could not “transition out of a fossil-fuel-based economy overnight. We can’t do it in five years. We can’t even do it in 10. So we’re going to continue to need to develop domestic oil consumption. We’re going to still need oil exports. And if it’s safe, then offshore drilling can be a part of that.”

He said, however, we have to invest in research and continue development of new resources building on the work that’s already been done on “solar and wind and biodiesel and energy efficiency in cars and buildings.”

“And if we don’t, then accidents are going to happen again,” he said. “They may not be of this size and this scope, but we’re going to continue to see big problems.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/us_and_canada/10313921.stm

Barack Obama calls for clean energy push

In a statement made as he visited areas affected by the BP oil spill, he said the US must "embrace a new future".

"Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month - including many in dangerous and unstable regions," he said.

"In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardise our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.

"We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help."

I havent located the full speech that formed the basis for the BBC story yet.

 

[elbows]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38468.html

“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11,” the president said in an Oval Office interview on Friday, "I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”

Obama said he couldn't predict whether the nation would transition completely from an oil-based economy within his lifetime but added that “now is the time for us to start making that transition and investing in a new way of doing business when it comes to energy.”

“I have no idea what new energy sources are going to be available, what technologies might drive down the price of renewable energies,” he said. “What we can predict is that the availability of fossil fuel is going to be diminishing; that it’s going to get more expensive to recover; that there are going to be environmental costs that our children, … our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren are going to have to bear.”

 

[goebfwai]

I havent located the full speech that formed the basis for the BBC story yet.

Try here:
http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse

 

[elbows]

Cheers, I will have a look at that later.

Here is the relevant portion of last nights Obama speech:

So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk. After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked -- not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time, but over the last year and a half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs -– but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation –- workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill –- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy -– because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party -– as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development -– and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.

All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-nation-bp-oil-spill

 

[goebfwai]

Wow, two main things spring to mind based on reading that excerpt - uber-protectionism and de-globalisation.

But after a global financial, economic and environmental crisis as severe as that has been witnessed and experienced over the past few years and, will - sadly - continue well into the decades to come, it is as inevitable as night follows day.

Just like a household tightening it's belt and hunkering down in a storm, on a nation state level, entire countries, trading blocs and continents have done, and will continue to end up doing the same.

If you haven't already prepared, people better start to do so now. To protect themselves against the rather sea-changing tide that's heading in. But also position themselves to contribute economically and societally to flush the dark tide out and ride the wave of progress, reconstruction, development and ecologically and environmentally sustainable growth.

 

[Dr Jon]

...
If you haven't already prepared, people better start to do so now. To protect themselves against the rather sea-changing tide that's heading in. But also position themselves to contribute economically and societally to flush the dark tide out and ride the wave of progress, reconstruction, development and ecologically and environmentally sustainable growth.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron. A piece of blah-blah, dreamt up by marketeers, in a bid to perpetuate their parasitic existence.

 

[Barking_Mad]

thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

In my view the most complete reasoning anywhere on how peak oil and the stagnation of economies will effect people. Neither sustainable growth or doom, but a very different and difficult world.

 

[rioted]

www.thearchdruid.blogspot.com

Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name thearchdruid is available to register!

 

[bendeus]

www.thearchdruid.blogspot.com

In my view the most complete reasoning anywhere on how peak oil and the stagnation of economies will effect people. Neither sustainable growth or doom, but a very different and difficult world.

Sounds interesting, but the link doesn't seem to work

 

[goebfwai]

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron. A piece of blah-blah, dreamt up by marketeers, in a bid to perpetuate their parasitic existence.

That may very well be, but irrespective of the original inventor of the terminology, the natural world and the various economic systems that it is based on, does - in practice - 'sustainable growth' all the time. Year in, year out. Century after century. Millennia after millenia.

Given a long enough time frame, nature and the natural forces within it will ultimately ensure economic growth is sustainable and balanced - even in cases where technology and other schemes are utilised to maximise productivity. A beautiful, brimming, bright blue lake, where the species are fished to extinction, will after a certain period of time become a dead, toxic and exhausted one. Ultimately the natural laws of mathematics and physics can't be changed. That's why sustainability, nurturing and looking after the environment - the bedrock upon which economies around the globe are based - is so fundamentally important. Nature looks after us, if we look after it. It's that simple.

In a battle between man's technical, technological and financial ingenuity, whether we like it or not, nature, God - call it what we will; it will always triumph.

 

[Dr Jon]

Sounds interesting, but the link doesn't seem to work

it's http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

 

[Dr Jon]

That may very well be, but irrespective of the original inventor of the terminology, the natural world and the various economic systems that it is based on, does - in practice - 'sustainable growth' all the time. Year in, year out. Century after century. Millennia after millenia.

What an interesting concept...

 

[Barking_Mad]

apologies, I tried to post the link from memory, thanks for the correction. Worth the read.

thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

 

[goebfwai]

What an interesting concept...

Well done for spotting the error!

I had intended to say:

"That may very well be, but irrespective of the original inventor of the terminology, the natural world whatever happens with the various economic systems that are based on it, does - in practice - 'sustainable growth' all the time. Year in, year out. Century after century. Millennia after millenia.

 

[Dr Jon]

so what is growing in that scenario?

 

[goebfwai]

so what is growing in that scenario?

It's not a question of what is specifically growing, but looking at the wider, macroscopic picture.

Growth of everything within the broad spectrum of the natural world is intimately intertwined with the complex conditions that growth takes place in. It is dependent on a wide range of factors from solar energy input, soil fertility, air quality and predator balance. In nature all growth is in essence sustainable. The growth will be sustained to the extent that the prevailing growing conditions are favourable in terms of the perpetuation of that very growth.

Thus, the growth of anything in nature - from crops to animal species - whether it be rich and abundant (leading to prosperous, happy and healthy populations), or poor and miserly (leading to poverty, discord and famine), will be sustained so long as conditions favour that growth.

Sustainable growth doesn't mean unlimited growth, but simply that growth will be sustained based on the mathematical, biological and physical realities of what's input, what ends up output, and what depreciates (or predates) on that output.

In other words, within any particular context of nature, when conditions no longer favour growth, nature as a body politic of complex, chaotic intertwining factors (almost analogous to nature having a wisdom and consciousness all on its own) will itself limit that growth.

We don't have to like it, it is simply what is, the reality, the facts.

Ultimately, it is like natures own profit and loss account.

These harsh realities and vagaries of nature that end up feeding into life, are precisely, and quite rightly, what the modern western social democracies, the welfare state etc that grew up in the 20th Century, are precisely there to help innoculate and protect people from. One that it will prove an increasing challenge to maintain in the 21st Century's first economic depression, and as governments impose fiscal austerity measures under often intense assault and pressure from 'the markets' and central and international banks - the IMF, et al. One that, following the global financial and economic collapse - as it possibly morphs and deepens in the ensuing years - we will all need to learn to be very inventive, imaginative, compassionate, co-operative and enterprising if we are going to maintain and build upon them.

To paraphrase from literature, we are either in for an era of "all for one and one for all" or "all for none and none for all". It all comes down to a question of whatever balance between selfishness and selflessness, greed and charity, intolerance or magnanimity starts to prevail on a collective, societal level. If it's the former, you have so many growing wars, battles, conflagrations and other triggers - so much evil and injustice - they end up crescendoeing into large, highly destructive and highly de-populating wars on a wide geographic scale. If it's the latter you have (relative) peace, prosperity and plenty. The formula, the path is as old and ancient as time itself.

Viewed through the prism of those terms, and getting back to the peak oil issue, and the incredible energy bonanza and population growth bonanza that has blossomed as a result of cheap abundant oil in the 20th Century (which has fuelled last centuries development -technologically, economically & socially), human civilisation seems inevitably in for one hell of a shock.

That is unless:

1) some miracle new energy source goes mass market, or an existing one - such as nuclear - is expanded
2) people learn to live in greater harmony with the natural world and it's limits;
3) society learns to maximise use of renewables & clean coal technology;
4) governments act in greater co-operation to use and better manage (including safely and ecologically manage) the remaining global oil reserves for the common benefit of all mankind

A combination of all four has the best chance of achieving that objective.

 

[fredfelt]

Good post goebfwai.

 

[Shevek]

Yeah good post. Why is still no-one talking about this in the mainstream media and if I mention it to friend they think I am tinfoil hat wearer.

 

[elbows]

Its sort of mainstream now, many in the business community are aware of it now. Even the markets have probably factored it in a little bit, but unlikely they have considered the full implications or the markets would probably have died already.

As for why the masses arent told of these realities very often, its probably to do with the idea that it would cause complete panic, people would respond in an irrational way (eg queuing up for petrol), people might demand that we tackle the problem in different ways, oil wars might look too obvious, people might curb their economic activity too much. Also people not wanting to hear it, journalists preferring other stories for a multitude of reasons, and probably some factors I havent thought of.

 

[fredfelt]

Anyone have an opinion of how peak oil will effect shares prices of oil / energy companies? I suspect they'll go ballistic and a tidy profit could be made - unless the whole financial system collapses.

 

[Shevek]

Its sort of mainstream now, many in the business community are aware of it now. Even the markets have probably factored it in a little bit, but unlikely they have considered the full implications or the markets would probably have died already.

As for why the masses arent told of these realities very often, its probably to do with the idea that it would cause complete panic, people would respond in an irrational way (eg queuing up for petrol), people might demand that we tackle the problem in different ways, oil wars might look too obvious, people might curb their economic activity too much. Also people not wanting to hear it, journalists preferring other stories for a multitude of reasons, and probably some factors I havent thought of.

How is this gonna play out? Are we gonna see the shit hit the fan in the next 4/5 years. I only became aware of Peak Oil a year ago (despite the fact I covered this topic in A level geography but it didn't sink in or - at the time (late 90's) they reckoned there would be 50 years of oil left (i.e. enough to cover most of my life-time) .

So we haven't adapted at all. Its gonna be a big slide to the bottom. These cuts are just the first wave of retrenchment (and relatively organised compared to what is to come).