Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
free spirit
more tea vicar?
nice car park units, been thinking about getting into installing them.
For recharging at work there are solar carports!
For the home, Tesla are selling 2KW PV systems through their sister company SolarCity.
2KW provides enough electricity to drive 12,000 miles a year (in California)
2kW homes units though... majority of domestic systems we install are 3-4kW, and this'd be the minimum I'd consider even vaguely worthwhile having to also charge a car up. I call gimmick on that, certainly not a serious attempt to sell solar charged cars.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Don't suppose you could post links/a summary of why you've come to that conclusion? I'm convinced you're right, it's what my natural cynicism tells me, but it would be nice to be able to back it up.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
If it were being done as an environmental measure then it'd be a wee bit odd that they've also entirely suspended the entire support scheme for renewables.
If they're using environmental issues as a cover for this policy, then that's all it is I'd say.
I generally agree with the leave it in the ground sentiment as an end goal, but not if it's just leave it in the ground in one country and lay people off, but import it instead from another country with worse pay rates and working conditions, which would seem to be the case here.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Cheers, that's exactly the kind of info I was after.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yeah, FS said exactly what I would have done (ditto what Elbows said earlier). If this was about the environment we'd be seeing those subsidies shifted to renewables. This is clearly about shifting production to mines in China/Africa with lower pay and worse conditions, not about leaving the coal in the ground.
Thus support the workers, whilst arguing that the closure of mines is necessary and the best way to support the workers would be to put money/time/energy into developing a replacement industry in the area (or helping people to move elsewhere if that makes more sense I guess), whilst always being sure to acknowledge thatone solution! revolution! really to sort this situation out properly we're going to have to abandon capitalism and move on to an economic system which is not about consuming/producing as much as possible.
Thus support the workers, whilst arguing that the closure of mines is necessary and the best way to support the workers would be to put money/time/energy into developing a replacement industry in the area (or helping people to move elsewhere if that makes more sense I guess), whilst always being sure to acknowledge that
elbows
Well-Known Member
Never say never, there are some medium-long term global scenarios which would cause us to reopen what we can. Peak oil, if transition handled (or not handled) a certain way, is one of them, especially if the gas glut is very temporary.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not so much a question of whether it's possible, just whether it's likely. The UK imports a lot of coal nowadays - most of its supply - which is crazy given how many perfectly viable mines were closed, but there would need to be very extreme circumstances for UK coal mining to start up again.
It's a little like other things such as university tuition fees - no reason at all these could not be abolished and we couldn't go back to the principle of free uni tuition for all, but it's very hard to see this happening now the principle of fees is becoming established.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I don't think the comments say it all.
I don't find the current production picture and future estimates particularly interesting at the moment, though I do think it highlights some of the reasons why I urged caution against the sense of immediacy that the likes of Falcon brought to the table.
The demand side is more interesting, and that article does highlight the interesting shift we have seen where the big drop in demand in the developed countries has been absorbed by the increased demand in the developing world. But the way the economy is looking we could easily see a global dowward trend in demand of an interesting magnitude in the years ahead.
The sheer glee the article writer doesn't try to disguise when imagining that these 'new realities' will shut up and discredit peak oilers is of some interest, its rarely quite so blatant.
Elsewhere I hear there is a report predicting oil demand will peak by 2030, though I haven't looked at the details yet. I expect the gas glut features somewhere in its thinking.
I don't find the current production picture and future estimates particularly interesting at the moment, though I do think it highlights some of the reasons why I urged caution against the sense of immediacy that the likes of Falcon brought to the table.
The demand side is more interesting, and that article does highlight the interesting shift we have seen where the big drop in demand in the developed countries has been absorbed by the increased demand in the developing world. But the way the economy is looking we could easily see a global dowward trend in demand of an interesting magnitude in the years ahead.
The sheer glee the article writer doesn't try to disguise when imagining that these 'new realities' will shut up and discredit peak oilers is of some interest, its rarely quite so blatant.
Elsewhere I hear there is a report predicting oil demand will peak by 2030, though I haven't looked at the details yet. I expect the gas glut features somewhere in its thinking.
Interesting article by George Monbiot, mirroring the above, in the Guardian today , saying the Peak Oil theory is bollocks. He isn't happy... he's an environmentalist...... because he sees us still on the road to ruin through oil-powered environmental disaster.. but still.. a bit of a gobsmacker for you Peak Oil Doomsters if true guys ?
Excerpt from the article:
"A report by the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun. The constraints on oil supply over the past 10 years appear to have had more to do with money than geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficult fields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that.
Maugeri's analysis of projects in 23 countries suggests that global oil supplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m) by 2020. This, he says, is "the largest potential addition to the world's oil supply capacity since the 1980s". The investments required to make this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel – the current cost of Brent crude is $95. Money is now flooding into new oil: a trillion dollars has been spent in the past two years; a record $600bn is lined up for 2012.
The country in which production is likely to rise most is Iraq, into which multinational companies are now sinking their money, and their claws. But the bigger surprise is that the other great boom is likely to happen in the US. Hubbert's peak, the famous bell-shaped graph depicting the rise and fall of American oil, is set to become Hubbert's Rollercoaster.
Investment there will concentrate on unconventional oil, especially shale oil (which, confusingly, is not the same as oil shale). Shale oil is high-quality crude trapped in rocks through which it doesn't flow naturally"
No-one is denying that oil is a finite resource, the issue obviously is "how finite ?" -- but this article yet again casts serious doubt on the thesis that "Peak Oil" was a core reason for the 2008 Crash. Maybe we don't have to get ready for the Neo- Malthusian population disaster quite yet , if more sensible political systems can be established to run the world economy and distribute its resources more equitably ?
Excerpt from the article:
"A report by the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun. The constraints on oil supply over the past 10 years appear to have had more to do with money than geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficult fields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that.
Maugeri's analysis of projects in 23 countries suggests that global oil supplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m) by 2020. This, he says, is "the largest potential addition to the world's oil supply capacity since the 1980s". The investments required to make this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel – the current cost of Brent crude is $95. Money is now flooding into new oil: a trillion dollars has been spent in the past two years; a record $600bn is lined up for 2012.
The country in which production is likely to rise most is Iraq, into which multinational companies are now sinking their money, and their claws. But the bigger surprise is that the other great boom is likely to happen in the US. Hubbert's peak, the famous bell-shaped graph depicting the rise and fall of American oil, is set to become Hubbert's Rollercoaster.
Investment there will concentrate on unconventional oil, especially shale oil (which, confusingly, is not the same as oil shale). Shale oil is high-quality crude trapped in rocks through which it doesn't flow naturally"
No-one is denying that oil is a finite resource, the issue obviously is "how finite ?" -- but this article yet again casts serious doubt on the thesis that "Peak Oil" was a core reason for the 2008 Crash. Maybe we don't have to get ready for the Neo- Malthusian population disaster quite yet , if more sensible political systems can be established to run the world economy and distribute its resources more equitably ?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Monbiot has been shown, several times now, to be poorly informed and prone to exageration. He is not an expert in oil production technology. The writers at theoildrum are. You will not find a more rational and objective "peak oil" website. Here's their take on the Harvard report:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292#more which includes some good technical reasons to doubt the report's findings.
The belief in the miracle of shale oil is depressing. This is what happens when you drill a shale oil formation:
You drill (at considerable expense), you get oil and immediately the rate drops off. The curve for a traditional well is a much more gentle slope.
The Harvard report assumes a much shallower decline rate than existing shale wells have shown, and even then requires 200 new wells per year to make the numbers work. 110mbpd is a *very * optimistic number. Regardless, the problem does not go away, and requires just as much political and economic change to fix. It's just pushed back a little bit.
As for Peak Oil being a core reason for the 2008 crash, IMO the jury is still well out on that one. Energy and economics are such vast, complex and interlinked systems, that you can't point at any one thing and say that it is to blame. Things might have gone differently if oil was $20/barrel but we'll never know. All we do know is that $200/barrel is not good for the current economic model.
It is possible to consider technical energy issues as well as the political ones that are intermeshed with them, you know?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292#more which includes some good technical reasons to doubt the report's findings.
The belief in the miracle of shale oil is depressing. This is what happens when you drill a shale oil formation:
You drill (at considerable expense), you get oil and immediately the rate drops off. The curve for a traditional well is a much more gentle slope.
The Harvard report assumes a much shallower decline rate than existing shale wells have shown, and even then requires 200 new wells per year to make the numbers work. 110mbpd is a *very * optimistic number. Regardless, the problem does not go away, and requires just as much political and economic change to fix. It's just pushed back a little bit.
As for Peak Oil being a core reason for the 2008 crash, IMO the jury is still well out on that one. Energy and economics are such vast, complex and interlinked systems, that you can't point at any one thing and say that it is to blame. Things might have gone differently if oil was $20/barrel but we'll never know. All we do know is that $200/barrel is not good for the current economic model.
oh please
It is possible to consider technical energy issues as well as the political ones that are intermeshed with them, you know?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
I was gonner post this up. I'd really like to think that this he right - becasue peak oil is a shit sandwich whichever way you slice it. However - I'd like to see something with more solid credibilty than an opinion piece in the graun. He talks about fracking and other 'un-conventional' sources of oil - but the whole point is that these sources are only viable becasue the easily accessable, cheap stuff is running out.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The timings really don't fit. I don't think Peak Oil can be considered a major causal factor in the crash at all. I think this stuff is buried in the history of this thread somewhere. There isn't a good causal fit at all - the crisis started before the spike in oil prices, and oil prices fell steeply from that spike as the world plunged into recession. You're right that this is a complex non-linear system, but that doesn't mean you can't say anything at all about it. And there is a far more compelling case to be made for the cause of the crash, which is that it was caused by massive increases in private sector debt, just as other crashes in the past have been.
Also see:
Shale Gas Reality Begins to Dawn
Shale Gas Reality Begins to Dawn
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I lean towards the idea that the crash was inevitable (for the reason you say) and that the oil spike helped tip it over the edge. Something else would have done it otherwise.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That was exactly my position, but love detective on here persuaded me otherwise. He makes a very good case for the idea that the crash was an entirely self-generated phenomenon. Can't remember whether it was on this thread or another that he made the argument. Hyman Minsky makes a similar argument about the way that debts become increasingly riskier during capitalist booms - as loans are made on the assumption that asset prices will go up - until they reach a point where confidence collapses. This process doesn't need any external 'trigger'.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well even if we put to one side for a moment the question of the accuracy of the reports predictions, there is still plenty to ponder.
For a start you should acknowledge the wide variety of positions when it comes to peak oil. There are only a few people here who have consistently put themselves in the 'we are all doomed any day now and there is no time left at all to do anything about it' camp. Personally peak oil fascinates me and I think its already made quite the mark on this century. But I have repeatedly cautioned against suggesting its already happened, and I have mused over the fact that if I'd come of age in the 1970s rather than having been born then, I might of thought it was about to happen back then and been very surprised at how long I had to wait for the main event.
Perhaps you should note that the original premise of this thread was nothing to do with the financial crash that later unfolded, and was far more about Iraq. Oh look, Iraq is the great hope for increased conventional oil production in the years ahead.
elbows
Well-Known Member
And as for the financial crash, it is certainly too simplistic to blame it all on oil. But disregard the oil prices impact on the detail of how things have unfolded at your peril. Gordon Brown didn't do the Saudi oil conference for a laugh or simply so he could strut around the world stage claiming to have saved it.
Rather than get into endless arguments about what caused the crash, I am more interested in studying details of debt and growth. For all the waffle we've heard on the news about these subjects in recent years, there is a distinct lack of attempts to discuss some very big questions. The most obvious example is why there is so little hope that we can have plenty of growth in the years ahead, and what factors cause people to label debt levels as unsustainable.
Rather than get into endless arguments about what caused the crash, I am more interested in studying details of debt and growth. For all the waffle we've heard on the news about these subjects in recent years, there is a distinct lack of attempts to discuss some very big questions. The most obvious example is why there is so little hope that we can have plenty of growth in the years ahead, and what factors cause people to label debt levels as unsustainable.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I have yet to recover from his treatment of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. He demonstrated a deep contempt for any truth which threatens his climate change agenda. It is quite understandable as to why he would do this given the stakes, but this must be considered when reading his stuff.
So with that in mind it is interesting to note that he doesn't seem to have employed exactly the same mode of thinking in the new article. This time he is willing to accept a vision of future reality that is completely at odds with his hopes, to take it as a given rather than deny it.
I do find it somewhat amusing that given the number of times I've tried to link climate change to peak oil in terms of political will to deal with it, we finally have a mainstream article which joins some of these dots, but only in hindsight, after he's concluded that this relationship is breaking down.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
And here we need to take the example of Japan seriously. Japan's stagnation since 1990 is absolutely nothing to do with oil at all. It is everything to do with a continual lack of demand caused by the long-term paying down of private sector debt that had grown massively in the 1980s. Comparisons of debt levels between the UK in 2008 and Japan in 1990 are strikingly similar. We face a similar period in which the private sector will, overall, be paying down its debts - ie reducing its demand - and where this lack of demand will continually have to be addressed/replaced by government. As returns on investments tend towards zero, the incentive to invest disappears. Interesting times, imo, as this could signal the end of capitalism as we know it, killed off by its own internal contradictions.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Besides, even if a glut of unconventional oil becomes available in the medium-term on the scale envisioned by that report, there is still much to pay attention to in the years ahead:
The rate of conventional oil output decline. The now dead Matthew Simmons did much to instil a sense of immediacy in this regard, primarily due to his thoughts on the Saudi giant fields. For all the detail he attempted to provide, I don't remember him actually putting dates & figures on things that justified the 'oh god its happening right now' feeling that much of his work evoked, and I do have some questions about his motives. Regardless, I still expect to see stuff happening on this front this decade, although not to the extent the likes of Falcon suggest.
The demand side. With no end to the economic woe in sight, this remains a key area.
Gas glut. Still early days but if this lasts then it still offers the possibility for some kind of transition - not the full spectrum change many chewed their nails over, but still a rather large intermediate step. e.g. we turn much of that gas into electricity, and move some more stuff that is currently liquid-fuelled towards being powered by electricity instead. Then later on, when gas declines, we at least only have to worry about the generation of the electricity rather than converting the infrastructure, cars etc into things that are powered by electricity.
The rate of conventional oil output decline. The now dead Matthew Simmons did much to instil a sense of immediacy in this regard, primarily due to his thoughts on the Saudi giant fields. For all the detail he attempted to provide, I don't remember him actually putting dates & figures on things that justified the 'oh god its happening right now' feeling that much of his work evoked, and I do have some questions about his motives. Regardless, I still expect to see stuff happening on this front this decade, although not to the extent the likes of Falcon suggest.
The demand side. With no end to the economic woe in sight, this remains a key area.
Gas glut. Still early days but if this lasts then it still offers the possibility for some kind of transition - not the full spectrum change many chewed their nails over, but still a rather large intermediate step. e.g. we turn much of that gas into electricity, and move some more stuff that is currently liquid-fuelled towards being powered by electricity instead. Then later on, when gas declines, we at least only have to worry about the generation of the electricity rather than converting the infrastructure, cars etc into things that are powered by electricity.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Not an unreasonable projection IMO.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yes, and thats certainly a very good reason not to get carried away with crediting the energy situation for all the woe thats unfolded. Not that I believe paying down of debt is the only big factor, there are other things that stop demand from continuing to increase, although it is hard to separate them from debt since its all interconnected. I am interested in everything from return on investment, surplus value, profitability, to household income and demographics. But Im especially interested in the relationship between debt and expectations about the future, and in the past thats where I've tended to insert peak oil issues, along the lines of 'borrowed against a future that will never exist'. Perhaps this still holds true even if there are not acute shortages of energy, perhaps the price alone is enough, i.e. the end of the era of cheap oil is a big enough story, actual declines in production not necessary to break these equations?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Another thing that probably hasn't been on our radars as much as it should is the bankruptcy of european oil refineries. Watching media discussions about petrol prices, government taxation etc last week, this area seemed curiously absent from much of the discussion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/25/crisis-european-refining-petroplus-bankruptcy
This emerging reality should factor strongly into our discussions of declining european oil demand, and of a general shift eastwards that is also one of the stories of the century.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/25/crisis-european-refining-petroplus-bankruptcy
This emerging reality should factor strongly into our discussions of declining european oil demand, and of a general shift eastwards that is also one of the stories of the century.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that is an interesting question. However, high prices are also double-edged - they mean that there is increased demand from oil producers. At whichever level of production you have, prices are actually zero-sum in terms of demand, aren't they - the higher the prices, the more that demand transfers to the producers.
Similar threads
- Poll
