Truthout: Peak Oil and Politicians

[marmar]

Peak Oil and Politicians
By Kelpie Wilson
t r u t h o u t | Environment Editor

Saturday 17 May 2008

In 1956, M. King Hubbert, a petroleum geologist with Shell Oil, presented a paper to the American Petroleum Institute that predicted US oil production would peak in the early 1970s and then follow a declining curve, now known as Hubbert's curve. But Hubbert almost didn't get to give his paper. He got a call from his bosses at Shell, who asked him to "tone it down." His reply was that there was nothing to tone down. It was just straightforward analysis. He presented the paper, unedited. You can read the whole story here.

Since that time, the oil industry and its political supporters have done everything they can to tone down the message that oil is a finite resource and that we will run out of it some day. Why would they do that? To further the short-sighted, short-term pursuit of profit. In 2004, Shell finally got caught in a lie about the size of its oil reserves. The company had inflated the stated size of its oil reserves to keep stock share prices high because who wants to invest in a company - or an industry - that is going the way of the dinosaurs?

Since 1956, the world economy has proceeded under a sort of oil company spell that has woven the illusion all around us that oil depletion is so far into the future that we don't need to worry about it. That belief was essential to support the aim of an endlessly growing economy.

There have been a few hitches in that strategy. In 1972, just as oil production in the United States reached its all-time peak, a group of computer modelers from MIT released a study called "The Limits to Growth." They predicted a steep decline in natural resources of all kinds. Because reserve numbers for many minerals, including oil, were not accurately known back then, they looked at different scenarios. Some showed us running out of oil before 2000 and some showed the peak occurring toward the middle of the 21st century.

The pro-growth faction reacted quickly and scathingly to the idea that there could be limits to growth. The MIT scientists were treated like Cassandras in academia and in the press.

This strategy of killing the messenger, the bearer of bad news, soon permeated American politics. Jimmy Carter tried to grapple with the energy crisis in the late 1970s with support for energy alternatives and conservation, but he was ridiculed by the media and American consumers were not able to hear the message. Ronald Reagan walked away with the presidency and promptly tore the solar panels off the roof of the White House.

Ever since then, it has somehow been "not polite" to talk about limits to growth. Today, despite skyrocketing oil prices, most politicians still avoid the term "peak oil." Most of the media still treat peak oil advocates with skepticism, using epithets like "fringe" and "so-called"to describe peak oil theory.

To be clear, peak oil is often misunderstood. The date that the world reaches peak oil is not the date we actually run out, but the date that we stop increasing production. This is followed by a "plateau" where oil production is flat. Eventually, oil production will decline. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051708A.shtml

[Spouting Horn]

1. If "peak oil"

is true, then why are there far more proven reserves today than in the early 70's?

I have read that there are a trillion barrels of oil in US and Canadian shale oil alone.

Not to mention several other huge discoveries since the early 70's.

[marmar]

2. Sorry, no Koolaid for breakfast for me......

..... Enjoying your morning at DU?

[NMDemDist2]

3. Turn off Rush and go do some Googling n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

4. It's economics

The new proven reserves are much smaller, usually far deeper, and dispersed. They require a lot of capital to develop.

Oil shale, oil sands, and asphalt-like oils are much more common than sweet light crude, but are likewise very expensive to develop. Plus, they are incredibly "dirty." Even a modest development effort can destroy an entire watershed.

The Orinoco Basin in Venezuela and the Athabascan Basin in Alberta/Saskatchewan are two such areas. The costs of developing these resources are enormous, and the projects may ultimately fail.

There is no shortage of petrochemicals. There is a shortage of ability to get to it and capital to develop that ability.

--p!

[BR_Parkway]

5. But apparently didn't even read the OP to see what the definition of Peak Oil

even is.

There is plenty of oil in the ground - and we'll probably find more as new technology develops.

Peak is the point where we just can't get it out cheaply enough to make sense in our petroleum based economy. If you can afford $10/gal gas - they'll be able to pump plenty to last your lifetime.

That knob next to the AM selection turns to the left for off - you'd be amazed how productive you might find that.

[wordpix]

6. "I have read that there are a trillion barrels of oil in US and Canadian shale oil alone." Where's

the link and what will it cost in terms of energy, roads, infrastructure and dollars to get these alleged trillion barrels out of the shale?

You earn an F b/c you need to do more homework than that.

[JackRiddler]

8. In the end you will be advocating a conquest of Canada

when they prove unwilling to produce shale oil for export because of the ecological impact.

Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 5

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

This is 3rd in a series of 5 guest posts by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels.

[rasputin1952]

7. Processing that would be extremely costly...perhaps up to

$150-175 a barrel, and eventually that would be gone as well. Point is, these resources cannot be replaced, and the damage that has been done to the ecosystem may well be on it's way to being irreversible.

As for Peak oil being "true", it has to be, there are no more oil fields being created, a few may be found yet, but once they go dry, that's it, nothing left. Delaying the inevitable does nothing to solve the problem of energy consumption on a vast scale, this earth will run out of petroleum, that is the stark reality of the situation.

As for Hubbert's Peak, it was formulated to show that cheap oil would be the result of mass consumption, Hubbert was right, for even with oil shales and other sources, the cost will actually increase. It hasn't bee used because it was not financially viable, with possible $150 a barrel prices on the horizon, it would be profitable. But what happens when these sources are gone?

We simply need to get out of the hydrocarbon mindset, the technology is there, but people don't want to accept it, and there lies the problem.