Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
One of the (online) Telegraph's main headlines today is 'Peak oil postponed again'. What do people make of this? I think AEP@the DT is being slightly sardonic. I mean, wasn't there an IEA whistleblower last year who made a variety of allegations and claims, suggesting that the IEA's figures in the past were far too optimistic? Now things have suddenly changed...!?
Ah.
What you call sustainable "growth", I would call "steady state" or "natural stability"
elbows
Well-Known Member
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).
The shit has already been hitting the fan. Its a long crisis with many phases. The oil crises of the 1970s were chapter 1. The problem was put to sleep in the 80s and 90s, and its been waking up again for pretty much all of this century. There may be dramatic events from time to time but generally its a long slide. Its impossible to be sure of what will happen because it all boils down to how people react to stuff happening. I think its more likely that you will see decades of economic woe than suddenly waking up one day and finding its all gone to poop, and if there are any sudden shocks they are likely to resemble financial emergencies such as the ones we have had in recent years, or perhaps some wars or 'terrorist' events.
As for adaption, I dont think its fair to say that we have not adapted at all, there has been some progress, both in the last 10 years and in the 70s and early 80s, its just nowhere near enough to make the necessary difference. I have little doubt that the financial woe is going to accelerate the transition, but again it will mostly have a brutal economic face rather than a green dream.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I need to look at the new IEA numbers. Good data can be hard to come by. The IEAs track record is not great, they massively underplayed the problem until very recently and its quite possible they will still massage the numbers where they can.
As best I can tell it does appear that gas supplies seem better than I would have predicted 5 years ago. But as far as oil goes, its more likely that the buffer will be maintained by reduced demand due to economic poop than by significantly increased production.
Good Post!
Yeah I guess I am being a bit dense. I have read some ethnography (anthropological monographs) of people living in Brazil in the 90's and in Uzbekistan also in 90's.
In the Brazillian case their economy went pear shaped after the 70's oil shocks. The book I read is all about middle class people on the edge, clinging onto respectability with vastly reduced circumstances.
In Uzbekistan it was a kleptocracy in the particular city it was located in with bodies in the street.
So yes this is already happening as you say just more dramatically in other parts of the world.
thanks for the post. I am learning a lot from this thread.
Yeah I guess I am being a bit dense. I have read some ethnography (anthropological monographs) of people living in Brazil in the 90's and in Uzbekistan also in 90's.
In the Brazillian case their economy went pear shaped after the 70's oil shocks. The book I read is all about middle class people on the edge, clinging onto respectability with vastly reduced circumstances.
In Uzbekistan it was a kleptocracy in the particular city it was located in with bodies in the street.
So yes this is already happening as you say just more dramatically in other parts of the world.
thanks for the post. I am learning a lot from this thread.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The thing with Peak Oil is that it's like any other evolutionary force - until it really starts to bite, nothing massive will change.
It's like the guys who track NEOs - giving us a short warning of an asteroid impact might be enough time to do something but you can't really prepare for it in any realistic sense.
It's like the guys who track NEOs - giving us a short warning of an asteroid impact might be enough time to do something but you can't really prepare for it in any realistic sense.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well we could practise on a non-hazardous asteroid. Just so we know that we can do something. The problems there are technical - we just don't know what the best way of protecting ourselves from asteroids is. Peak Oil has technically proven solutions. The problems are political and cultural and social, and they're much harder to solve.
This approach besets a number of debates, including creationism ("I cannot imagine how the eye evolved, so...") and climate change ("I cannot imagine a world that is 6C warmer, so..."). Those who cannot imagine or believe then go back through the evidence, crossing out all the data that would force them to try...
The answer is always "believe the data, then imagine harder".
No I rationally believe it its just that its still hard to imagine while I am trolling round sainsbury's.
I wonder how much of an impact western control of oil coming out of Iraq has also had on price levels (on top of the global economic collapse)? Wasn't Iraq said to have once held one of the top 3 reserves in the world? Considering the amount of money and the number of lives sacrificed (on both sides) on the altar of global capitalism, in order that the west could secure control of it, we see precious little reported in the news about how much oil has been extracted, what it's worth, who's profiting from it, and stuff. Strange that. Wasn't Iraq once a member of OPEC or something? I wonder if it still is? Because, love it or loathe it, a markedly pro-west Iraqi government (that some have accussed of being something of a puppet govt) with it's feet under the table of OPEC would presumably give the west considerable leverage over pricing. Cartel style systems, price fixing systems, monopolistic leaning arrangements always do.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Its a complex issue. Iraq is still a member of OPEC. But OPEC does not have as much control over world oil prices as it would like, and it can only attempt to raise prices by reducing production quotas, something that most members of OPEC are not inclined to do very much. And OPEC countries dont have the spare supply capacity which they once had, meaning their ability to reduce prices by increasing supply is also limited.
In terms of being friendly to the West, Sadi Arabia dwarfs the other OPEC producing nations and it is generally rather friendly to Western oil needs. Iraq may have considerable reserves (especially unproven ones) but its actual production capacity isnt that high at the moment.
The details of the exact oil-related motives for the Iraq was are still well open to debate. It probably wasnt the simplified idea of control over Iraqs oil that some would think, nor was it a means to gain significant control over OPEC. Certainly some companies and individuals will be able to profit nicely from developing Iraqs oil reserves. Its possible it was about being able to develop Iraqs oil indistry without destroying the sanctions or empowering Saddam. We will have to wait and see if they manage to significantly increase production levels to see how useful Iraq is to the overall global oil supply picture. The timing of the war could have been based on an expectation of rising oil prices - could we even have risked invading Iraq if oil had been over $100 a barrel at the time? Plus 9/11 created the opportunity and the sanctions were looking a bit unsustainable.
The other potential factor which some speculated about was the US dollar as the global reserve & trading currency - the likes of Venezuela and Iraq were pushing to trade oil in Euros rather than the dollar, a threat that 'we' probably felt needed to be kept in check at the time, though less relevant now the Euro is in trouble and some of the 'bad guys' have been killed or brought into line.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Saudi plans nuclear power.
I take it that oil is not coming out at $5 a barrel anymore. Especialy given the scope scale and cost of Haradh III .
I take it that oil is not coming out at $5 a barrel anymore. Especialy given the scope scale and cost of Haradh III .
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Lancashire gets some wells drilled. Hunting for 'shale gas'.
Not the first well in England, Nottingham used to have the largest onland oil well in the UK, kinda important during the war.
Still we shall see if it is indeed another Barnet formation under Lancashire.
IIRC there is also some exploration in Lothian.
Not the first well in England, Nottingham used to have the largest onland oil well in the UK, kinda important during the war.
Still we shall see if it is indeed another Barnet formation under Lancashire.
IIRC there is also some exploration in Lothian.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Saw that on C4 news last night. The 2 things I took away from the story:
1. The guy managing Caudrillard looked like a proper engineer type.
2. The exceptionally hot spokeslady for the US environmental group commenting on the potential issues associated with shale gas extraction.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Shale gas has certainly transformed the US energy picture, bought them quite a bit of time on the gas front. Not sure it will make much difference to peak oil consequences, but it certainly seems to have pushed back the impending gas woes, which helps deal with peak oil at least in as much as its no longer quite the perfect storm with 2 of the main fossil fuels availability decreasing rapidly at the same time. It does not sound like they are expecting European commercial shale gas discoveries to be at the sort of level that could actually be used to offset against declining oil, at best it will help us a little bit with the gas situation but figures bandied around such as providing 5-10% of our gas needs does not really get me excited. Especially when I look at the North Sea decline graphs for both oil & gas production in the last decade.
They are also the worlds biggest spenders on renewables. Some staggering figures here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/10/china-clean-energy
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
I have just come across this, formerly of The Oil Drum, Stuart Stannifrod now has his own blog.
'In Business' Radio 4 8th August 2010
Just listened to an episode of In Business on BBC Radio 4. It was all about smart-grids. The gist of the programme seemed to be that new smart grids and smart meters will revolutionise energy production and consumption and aid the transition to a low carbon economy. The idea of this being a 'third' industrial revolution was used a lot.
One chap from Holland was talking about every building in the EU generating its own electricity and all being connected up using information technology with grids stretching across continents.
All this was presented as 'expensive' but neccesary and would create a sustainable low carbon economy.
Any thoughts
Just listened to an episode of In Business on BBC Radio 4. It was all about smart-grids. The gist of the programme seemed to be that new smart grids and smart meters will revolutionise energy production and consumption and aid the transition to a low carbon economy. The idea of this being a 'third' industrial revolution was used a lot.
One chap from Holland was talking about every building in the EU generating its own electricity and all being connected up using information technology with grids stretching across continents.
All this was presented as 'expensive' but neccesary and would create a sustainable low carbon economy.
Any thoughts
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Bullshit. At best they will moderate when energy is consumed.
Well they are decades late.
The first industrial revolution was the coal\steam revoultion of the 19th century.
The second industrial revolution was the ICU\ electricity revolution of the first half of the 20th century.
The third industrial revolution was the computing revolution of the second half of the 20th century.
Given the economic revolution that the silicon chip unleashed largely took place (and continues to take place) in laboratories - spaces which are very unindustrial/post industrial - and the very nature of microchip and processor technology involves no moving parts (which one would assume to be a prerequisite for something to be termed 'industrial'), would it not be more correct to describe computing as a 'Technological Revolution'?
This is being promoted by businesses who think that "going green" is a smart business strategy. As has been said, this is a high-tech solution which ain't gonna happen, at least on any useful or meaningful scale, for a whole number of reasons.
I was reading the Archdruid Report over the weekend and I think that Greer has the right idea: "Old Skool" alt tech, built and controlled locally is probably the only way any of this will actually reach ordinary people.
Large international consortia are only interested in selling energy to folks with money: governments, banksters and other parasites, locked away in their gated communities. They'll leave the rest of us scratching around in the shit...
I was reading the Archdruid Report over the weekend and I think that Greer has the right idea: "Old Skool" alt tech, built and controlled locally is probably the only way any of this will actually reach ordinary people.
Large international consortia are only interested in selling energy to folks with money: governments, banksters and other parasites, locked away in their gated communities. They'll leave the rest of us scratching around in the shit...
elbows
Well-Known Member
I went and listened to the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7jyv
It was one person in particular who liked the 'third industrial revolution' label. The term is obviously confusing and probably inappropriate but there will certainly need to be some form of revolution, in terms of general consumption as much if not more than generation.
It was fairly balanced in that it didnt try to pretend it would be easy or cheap, and the uk electricity generation gap that looms for around 2015 was mentioned several times, along with whether a lot of people would actually care about monitoring their own consumption.
Personally I feel that a smarter grid is inevitable given the state of the old grid, and some of the issues involved with renewable & micro generation being plugged into the grid. Quite how smart it will end up being, and how connected between countries it is, are open to question, and I think there is a pretty good chance that we will not get it fully working in the UK within the timescale currently envisaged. Even if we got the basic network going in time its going to take quite a while for smart appliances to be the norm in most homes. Its also unclear how much consumption will be curtailed in a far cruder way, be it price, greater poverty of would-be consumers, or simple unavailability of the resources people would like to consume. The better than expected short-medium term global gas production we are seeing may buy some more time, not sure how all the different factors will pan out at all really.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7jyv
It was one person in particular who liked the 'third industrial revolution' label. The term is obviously confusing and probably inappropriate but there will certainly need to be some form of revolution, in terms of general consumption as much if not more than generation.
It was fairly balanced in that it didnt try to pretend it would be easy or cheap, and the uk electricity generation gap that looms for around 2015 was mentioned several times, along with whether a lot of people would actually care about monitoring their own consumption.
Personally I feel that a smarter grid is inevitable given the state of the old grid, and some of the issues involved with renewable & micro generation being plugged into the grid. Quite how smart it will end up being, and how connected between countries it is, are open to question, and I think there is a pretty good chance that we will not get it fully working in the UK within the timescale currently envisaged. Even if we got the basic network going in time its going to take quite a while for smart appliances to be the norm in most homes. Its also unclear how much consumption will be curtailed in a far cruder way, be it price, greater poverty of would-be consumers, or simple unavailability of the resources people would like to consume. The better than expected short-medium term global gas production we are seeing may buy some more time, not sure how all the different factors will pan out at all really.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I really wouldnt go that far. Whilst the odds of many of the solutions going wrong or not delivering what is currently being touted seems fairly high, it is not safe to assume that every solution currently being touted is completely doomed to fail. Personally I doubt that the energy picture in 2030 or 2050 will resemble what is currently being sold to us, I expect overall consumption levels to be way lower. But that does not mean there will be a complete collapse of energy networks, rather they will be delivering far less, but our needs will also have adjusted to ask for far less. It may all go horribly wrong and we will be left to more primitive but practical local methods, but to consider this a cert leads to some romantic primitivist survivalist drooling on the net (by lots of people, not singling you out here) that seems rather out of step with the high-tech highly networked globe that is our starting point.
I think there is also some misunderstandings about the nature of wealth and power if you really expect the well off to successfully retreat behind the gates and leave us to our own devices. Its workable to a certain extent but their wealth and power comes from the masses and so they cannot afford to become utterly disinterested as to our fate. So again I think the world you imagine may be a part of the story of the future, but far far from the whole story, and really even less probable, sustainable and scaleable than the tech & infrastructure revolution you have written off.
Similar threads
- Poll
