John_A wrote:Read the title to this thread Ralfy. From the Forbes article:
The main reason why Peak Oil theorists always turn out to be wrong is that they by and large appear to be unable to grasp the huge role advancing technology plays in allowing the industry to discover new oil resources previously unknown, to access known resources that were previously thought to be unexploitable, and to extract an ever-increasing percentage of oil long known to be in place via secondary and tertiary recovery techniques. They appear to believe – either through lack of imagination or due to political convenience – that current assessments of available resources in known formations will always remain static and never increase, never understanding or acknowledging that those assessments will rise along with advances in technology.
Go compare that to what Euan wrote here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10093and you discover real quickly that Forbes is saying the same thing Euan is. You really shouldn't be this gullible Ralfy, Heading Out looks to be talking out of one side of TODs mouth, and then Euan comes along and kicks his head in and says Forbes was right.
Read the title to the thread Ralfy, this isn't about press release pablum or attempts by TOD staff to cover their retreat. Just in case your reading comprehensions stays at its normal level, I'll make sure to place the emphasis properly for you.
What really killed The Oil Drum.
But as explained to you many times discovering new resources doesn't lead to long-term and secure increases in oil and gas production, and there's no guarantee that the expected production rate will meet demand. See several of the reports that mentioned in this forum for details.
For example, the Citi report argues that oil consumption for North America will rise to 12 Mb/d in a decade, but after that will start to drop. Current consumption for the U.S. alone is 19 Mb/d.
The IEA 2010 report states that with maximum depletion rates reached all oil and gas sources worldwide will lead to energy produced by only 9 pct during the next two decades. But oil consumption has been rising by 2 pct a year during the last three decades. That means even with maximum production levels oil expected oil consumption will not be reached. That is why the IEA argues that oil consumption increase will have to be decreased by more than half, with renewable energy making up for what is lacking. This will require extensive cooperation and coordination between governments, something that we have not seen during the past few decades.
Some more points need to be repeated:
The fact that we are now resorting to unconventional oil doesn't show that peak oil is "going, going, gone" but confirms the problem. Otherwise, there'd be no need at all to use unconventional oil.
The problem is that rosy forecasts based ironically on the same claims to "advanced technology" and technofixes did not take place. Crude oil production did not rise considerably and oil prices did not drop to less than $30 a barrel. Saudi Arabia claims in 2009 of reaching a production rate of 15 Mb/d by 2011 did not materialize.
More important is the fact that oil production is used by a growing global population and growing resource demands. Thus, the claim that peak oil is "going, going, gone" comes too late as oil production per capita peaked back in 1979. Meanwhile, not only is the population still growing but so is resource demand due to a increasing global middle class. That is why even as oil consumption drops for the U.S., EU, and Japan due to economic crises it is rising considerably worldwide even with a tripling of prices.
According to the IEA, in order to meet that growing demand and economic growth, we will not additional production equivalent to one Saudi Arabia every seven years. And if we need additional oil to transition to other energy sources, then we will need even more. And if demand from that middle class continues to grow, fueled by increasing credit from a financial elite that can only profit through more production and consumption of goods.....
That is why in contrast to the Forbes piece, what Mearns offers is much more accurate and confirms what the IEA said. But what the IEA presents are not forecasts but scenarios given certain conditions met. And those conditions involve strong government policies and incredible levels of cooperation and coordination between governments.
When I look at what happened during the past six decades, I did not see that cooperation and coordination save in the Green Revolution, which ironically solved and created new problems. That is, the use of oil and other resources led to higher food production and manufacturing, which in turn led to lower infant mortality rates and longer life expectancy rates. But that in turn led to a doubling of the global population in only a few decades, leading to incredible levels of stress on ecosystems. Worse, as more of the same population vied for a middle class lifestyle, resource consumption increased readily.
Meanwhile, military forces were used to control various resources and ensure strategic advantages. The financial elite gambled heavily, leading to financial risks and in turn economic crises. The effects of increased oil consumption, which include global warming, has led to more stress on resource availability and growing concerns even from the IEA. All of these in turn have contributed to high food and oil prices, in turn contributing to social unrest worldwide. All of these points, BTW, were mentioned in Mearns' article.
Given these combinations of predicaments and problems, how can long-term cooperation, coordination, and planning towards effective energy and resource use take place?