Why the oil industry has buried the idea of "peak oil"

[pstarr]

dsula, you apparently do not understand property tax . A municipality can not afford to tax all property beyond the owners ability to pay, otherwise the tax base disappears.

Yeah, you would think so. But I wouldn't count on it. Especially not in a slow crash. Every year 1% or so more in taxes. You go delinquent, your property is up for auction. The local big farmers scoop it up, you're done. As long as this only happens to a few residents a year it will go unnoticed.
I would especially not count on you (as a subsistance guy) to be able to outrun big money.

You appear to be confusing mortgage foreclosure with city lien. I have no mortgage so I don't worry about foreclosure. As for city lien, the city/town will never kick me out of my home (even if I were in arrears for back taxes) because my homelessness doesn't help anyone (contrary to certain conspiracy-type-theories) The lien might make resell difficult, but that is not the issue we are discussing.

Don't count on collapes

oh yeah? tell that to the Grand Poobah of Great Easter Islande Federation of Big Chiefs. (GEIFBC) He'll certainly want to take it up at the next county supes meeting.

[dsula]

As for city lien, the city/town will never kick me out of my home (even if I were in arrears for back taxes) because my homelessness doesn't help anyone.

My town is not that forgiving. If you can't pay your taxes you're being replaced with somebody who can. Not a bad thing either. I already pay enough property tax, don't want to also have to pay for those who can't.

Don't count on collapes

oh yeah? tell that to the Grand Poobah of Great Easter Islande Federation of Big Chiefs. (GEIFBC) He'll certainly want to take it up at the next county supes meeting.

It took about 700 years for the Easter islands to go to hell. Hardly a fast crash. Life just getting worse over many generations. They probably didn't even realize the drop in standard of living. Same as the gradual decline in the US since the 60's and 70's. Slow process.

Was one of your ancesters sitting on the islands anticipating the collapse? Hoping year after year for 'this is it'?

[Rune]

Is This What Peak Oil Looks Like?

Peak oil theory holds a static view of the world, and its models ignore price effects: lots of oil discoveries and high production mean that prices and profits wane, and incentives for further exploration decline. But ensuing oil shortages then restore these incentives. When incentives exist, the industry will continue to produce and is likely to produce even more. Peak oil theorists also neglect the role of technological advances in oil production as a great multiplier. The history of the oil industry reflects an endless struggle between nature and our knowledge. Progress in technology allows both new discoveries and the increase in recovery rate needed to turn non-recoverable or hypothetical resources into recoverable reserves. _China Dialogue

In the real world, oil reserves are not static, but rather respond to changes in prices, technologies, alternative fuels and energies, and new discoveries. Peak oil has shown itself incapable of responding to real world conditions, which makes it more like a religion.

The market has now priced in declining oil prices at least through 2020. If "peak oil" dynamics are still at play, they are nowhere to be found on this futures curve. [see graph above] _Forexpro

Peak oil skunks show their true stripes in their hysterical reactions over the shale oil & gas boom. Instead of being happy that civilised nations are being given a temporary respite from high energy costs, these little weasels are hoping that governments will shut down the new forms of energy -- they hope for political peak oil.

Apocalyptic thinking has become all the rage in peak oil doom / carbon hysteria circles. Clearly the US Obama administration , along with several governments of Europe, have been tainted more than a little by this coliform pollution of the mind.

But no matter how many circles of doom may form around the perimeter, the main thrust of human nature has always been toward profit, growth, and life. These positive drives push technology and exploration forward, and open up new conceptual mindsets which are able to incorporate new forms of energy, fuels, and possibilities into a larger future vision.

Doom is fashionable among the effete elite in the media, politics, faux environmentalism, academia, and the many cults of the apocalypse. But the rest of us have work to do.

[pstarr]

The chart is nonsense. There is no "fair value" for anything. Only what the market bears. The rest of the rant (which is in violation of the COC, as it is not supported with your analysis) appears equally pointless. I skipped immediately to the last sentence and went, "oh. fun. we have another clueless peak-oil debunker" I was starting to get bored.

[kublikhan]

The chart is nonsense. There is no "fair value" for anything. Only what the market bears. The rest of the rant (which is in violation of the COC, as it is not supported with your analysis) appears equally pointless. I skipped immediately to the last sentence and went, "oh. fun. we have another clueless peak-oil debunker" I was starting to get bored.

+1
Not only is the rant nonsense and not worth debunking, it violates the COC. Carl, you can do better than that.

[pstarr]

The chart is nonsense. There is no "fair value" for anything. Only what the market bears. The rest of the rant (which is in violation of the COC, as it is not supported with your analysis) appears equally pointless. I skipped immediately to the last sentence and went, "oh. fun. we have another clueless peak-oil debunker" I was starting to get bored.

+1
Not only is the rant nonsense and not worth debunking, it violates the COC. Carl, you can do better than that.

Right. Rune is Carl, the Rossi Cold Fusion Guy. I liked him when he was all-9/11-truther. Then he got wacky. Must have broke under the pressure.

Come back Carl. I believe in nano-thermite. I do.

[Rune]

Carl, you can do better than that.

I didn't say it. Al fin did. It's a clear quote.

[pstarr]

Carl, you can do better than that.

I didn't say it. Al fin did. It's a clear quote.

I don't want to hear from Al Fin again. He is is full of it. (who is Al Fin anyway? does he have a facebook page?)

[SeaGypsy]

Carl is using himself as an experiment in Singularity, sometimes we get the real Carl, other times we get whatever is on his Ipad. Poor Carl. Lost in the Matrix. That article is disgusting rotten tripe.

[eXpat]

Carl, you can do better than that.

I didn't say it. Al fin did. It's a clear quote.

I don't want to hear from Al Fin again. He is is full of it. (who is Al Fin anyway? does he have a facebook page?)

http://www.blogger.com/profile/13739269791915017382
Even better, he/she has a blog called: You sexy thing!
http://alfin2500.blogspot.com.ar/
Shocking

[ralfy]

Yeah, but I was thrown by the idea that if they haven't been worth listening to for the past decade or two, why would anyone pay any attention at all to anything they said. Ever. Doesn't matter what scenarios they dream up one way or the other really.

That's why you have to lower the estimates that they gave even more.

[AdTheNad]

You go delinquent, your property is up for auction.

Not in France. They can't take your primary residence off you.

As for city lien, the city/town will never kick me out of my home (even if I were in arrears for back taxes) because my homelessness doesn't help anyone

Could they take 1 of your 100 acres in lieu of payment? And if not legally now, do you think the laws won't be changed depending on the speed of the decline?

In some situations I think that is what should happen - but more so with huge land holders than small land holders which is why land tax should be progressive. For example, if I live on an Island with just me and a mega corporation, but the corp owns everything then I have no land to grow my own food and I will starve. Then I'll either fight for land and crops or steal to survive. Clearly in this case everyone is better off on average if they would either give me enough food to live, or some land is redistributed to me. It seems in the Western world we've mostly chosen the option where poor people are given enough food to survive, since this way the corporations retain ownership of the land, just as they want it.

[seenmostofit]

Yeah, but I was thrown by the idea that if they haven't been worth listening to for the past decade or two, why would anyone pay any attention at all to anything they said. Ever. Doesn't matter what scenarios they dream up one way or the other really.

That's why you have to lower the estimates that they gave even more.

I must respectfully disagree. The IEA wasn't a little wrong here, or a little wrong there, the solution to which is shaving a few percentage points off their numbers to make it agree with someone else. They were wrong down at the structural level, so the value of their projections and numbers are simply zero.

[pstarr]

Shorty meet Carl. Rune meet seenmostofit. Here's hoping your avatars relate more successfully than their human counterparts.

[Rune]

Wall Street Pit

What Happened to Peak Oil?

Fears that the world is running short of oil aren’t going away, but judging by the latest figures on global oil production there’s no sign that the peak oil factor is an imminent threat. Global output rose to a new all-time high last December, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA): 75.384 million barrels per day, or just ahead of the previous peak of 75.170 million barrels a day in January 2011.

A new high may ease anxiety over oil supplies for the moment, but it’s sure to be a temporary respite. All the challenges that have weighed on the outlook for raising production over the past decade are still with us. Discoveries of big, easily recoverable supplies are dwindling. Yes, U.S. consumption of oil has reportedly fallen 10% since 2005, but world demand keeps rising, mostly because of increasing growth from China, India, and other emerging markets that are rapidly industrializing and using ever larger quantities of fossil fuels.

Yet the peak oil theorists, if not wrong in the long term, seem to have been premature in warning that the summit for production was upon us. In 2009, for instance, one forecast for global oil production via The Oil Drum warned that output was set to fall by more than two million barrels a year. A decade ago, geologist Ken Deffeyes’ widely read book Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage opened by stating that “global oil production will probably reach a peak sometime during this decade.” The 2009 edition of the book makes the same forecast.

Deffeyes is hardly alone in warning that the end is near for raising global oil production, as a sampling of the many book titles in recent years on the peak oil subject remind: The Party’s Over, The End of Oil, and Profit from the Peak, for instance.

There is a peak out there somewhere, of course. Production for every commodity with a finite supply inevitably reaches a crest. The question, of course, is when? Estimating the date of the apex is problematic for several reasons. Technology, for instance, can change the analysis. If you can make cars more energy efficient, that’s the equivalent of finding more oil, all else equal. That leaves us with the troublesome task of predicting what technology will bring in terms of energy savings in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, new and unexpected supply sources are increasingly rare, but they do pop up from time to time, such as the huge discovery in Brazil a few years ago. New finds require new estimates for the peak. Once again, technology must be factored into the analysis. History suggests that a given field’s recoverable supply rises with improved technology through time.

Let’s not forget that there’s always doubt about the data, which further complicates the forecast of the peak. To cite just one example that illustrates the problem: Iran, one of the largest sources of crude oil on the planet. Anyone want to bet a year’s salary that the official numbers from Tehran have been accurate over the last 20 years?

In fact, all analytical roads lead back to the Middle East, starting with Saudi Arabia, which holds the title of the world’s large supplier of easily recoverable crude oil and the repository for most of the world’s spare production capacity. The kingdom, in other words, is the world’s great swing producer, allowing the country to effectively raise output relatively quickly. The late Matthew Simmons, a widely quoted oil analyst in his day, warned in his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert that Saudi Arabia’s production was nearing a peak. The forecast appeared to be accurate for several years, although the latest data reveals that it was premature after all. The kingdom’s crude oil output reached an all-time high at the end of 2011, according to EIA. In fact, one of the key reasons why global production is up is because of the chart below:

As always, there’s the enduring question: Will it last? Can the world continue to increase oil production? Yes, according to the BP Energy Outlook 2030 published earlier this year. Good thing too, since total global consumption of crude is expected to rise in the decades ahead as well. How will the oil industry satisfy this thirst? “Rising supply to meet expected demand growth should come primarily from OPEC, where output is projected to rise by nearly 12 [million barrels per day]. The largest increments of new OPEC supply will come from [natural gas liquids] as well as conventional crude in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.”

EIA also expects global production to continue rising as far as the eye can see, for both OPEC and non-OPEC sources.

None of this deters the peak oil crowd. “Peak oil is a fact, not a theory,” asserts PeakOil.com

From US conventional oil production peaking in 1970 to global conventional oil production peaking in 2006 the figures are indisputable. Even institutions such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and publications like The Economist that are not known for alarmism have admitted that oil production from conventional sources has peaked. So why are there still commentators out there that refuse to believe peak oil?

Rising production numbers are probably part of the answer.

Hey! PO.com actually gets a mention in this piece! This is the first time that I have ever heard anyone quote from THIS site in an article.

[Keith_McClary]

You show up here every few months in your new set of Hot Wheels
...
Until then just drive away.

"Drive-by denialism" ?

I almost coined a new phrase, Google returned only 4 results (relating to AGW).
More fitting to PO denialism, tho.

[Keith_McClary]

"the oil industry has buried the idea of 'peak oil'." Rather, it sprinkled a bit of dust on top of it.

You mean fairy dust?

[seenmostofit]

What is the mechanism whereby the industry personnel who discovered peak oil more than half a century ago;

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13630

and their modern descendants discussing it, in public, at the end of the last century;

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

and the national newspapers talking about it only half a decade or so ago;

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... usat_x.htm

and the international energy agencies which have declared it as historical fact;

http://www.the9billion.com/2011/05/24/p ... ays-video/

how is it possible to maintain that this has all been hidden from us by industry?

Just an on topic thought....

[ralfy]

I must respectfully disagree. The IEA wasn't a little wrong here, or a little wrong there, the solution to which is shaving a few percentage points off their numbers to make it agree with someone else. They were wrong down at the structural level, so the value of their projections and numbers are simply zero.

It's not that they were "a little wrong here, or a little wrong there," but as you put it, "[t]hey were wrong down at the structural level." That is why more than five years ago, it was argued that oil production would rise to around 115 mb/d by 2015 and oil prices would drop by less than $60 due to new oil discoveries, new technologie, etc. With less than three years left, and we're not even close to that. Three years ago, Saudi Arabia boasted that they would reach 15 mb/d by 2011. Now, they can barely reach 10 mb/d.

The "structural" problems involve ignorance of EROEI, historical flow rates, etc. If these "structural level" issues had been resolved, we would see lower estimates.

Thus, "the value of their projections and numbers are simply zero" because they are overestimated. But even those over-estimates cannot be hidden for long, as shown in one report from another released by various groups, including ironically oil companies. You will find the reports linked here:

http://ralfyman.blogspot.com

With that, the oil industry had indeed been trying to "bury" the "idea of 'peak oil'" not by debunking it but by ignoring it, promising production ramp-ups and lower prices. But more reports from several of their companies reveal otherwise.

[ralfy]

"the oil industry has buried the idea of 'peak oil'." Rather, it sprinkled a bit of dust on top of it.

You mean fairy dust?

More like references to what is technically recoverable, with the hope of making the ignorant believe that there's an "abundance" of oil.