Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Apocalypse Not: Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Worry About End Times
I’m linking to this article for a couple of reasons. Firstly I think it is shows pretty clearly how there is a lunatic fringe who sees killer bears behind every tree in the woods, everything is a potential disaster, we are doomed etc. The unfortunate part of this is that the concept of Peak Oil gets grouped with the rest of the nonsense.
What this means is all of the “doomsday” worries are grouped as one when it is clear they should not be. This hits close to home for me having spent about 6 or so years on this site as someone who knows something about the subject matter.
As anyone who reads my posts would know I firmly believe in peak oil. I was introduced to the subject back numerous decades ago by two thesis supervisors, one who worked with King Hubbert for a number of years at the Shell research centre and the other who was at the AAPG meeting in the fifties when Hubbert first presented his ideas on oil depletion. I have an advanced background in two subjects dear to Hubberts thoughts, organic geochemistry and rock mechanics. I am in that place having spent 30+ years in the oil industry searching for hydrocarbons around the world that I can say the shale gas/oil story is the conclusion to the novel that was our fossil fuel consuming life. The idea of abiotic oil is stupid at best and the thought that every country in the world has shale resources like the US is naïve beyond belief. I had a group of people reporting to me at my last job whose whole focus was to look at shale resources around the world. I’m sorry to report that although there are some stellar hot spots like Algeria, Argentina and maybe Saudi Arabia everywhere else it looks like small potatoes. The fact that we are running out of fossil fuel resource should not be disputed, it is a fact based on every bit of valid science conducted in the last number of decades. As a consequence it is something that needs to be acted on in one way or the other (alternatives, adaption….who in hell knows).
What is unfortunate is that a number of folks on this site have chosen to link this with other apocalyptic beliefs such as catastrophic global warming.
This lessens the import of something that is proven and guaranteed. The whole idea of catastrophic global warming is a theory that is not only unproven but widely debated, has huge flaws and in fact seems to disagree with recent trends. It is a theory that, yes if true could be bad but I do need to point out that the narrowest gap historically that has been shown between CO2 and temperature is 800 years, no not 1 year, several hundred years, and I won’t bother to mention that that bit of recent research illustrates it as being temperature leading CO2 as one might expect.
More recently we have idiots suggesting that current weather patterns such as drought and heat waves portend catastrophic global warming even though we have had worse droughts and heat waves in the not too distant past (evidence available if needed) when it was impossible to equate this to human influence.
My issue here is that what I will unapologetically refer to as fearful and undereducated people on this site by trying to equate unsubstantiated claims about catastrophic global warming enc up demeaning the whole basis of peak oil understanding and acceptance. As long as we have people continuing to equate bad hypothetical science with what is proven science there is absolutely no way forward in getting mainstream acceptance of the the looming problem of Peak Oil.
This makes me mad. We need to get the general population to understand the limits to resources so that we can figure out what to do.
MIT’s models foresaw the collapse of civilization because of “nonrenewable resource depletion” and population growth. “In an age more innocent of and reverential toward computers,” Lomborg writes, “the reams of cool printouts gave the book’s argument an air of scientific authority and inevitability” that “seemed to banish any possibility of disagreement.” Then — as now, regarding climate change — respect for science was said to require reverential suspension of skepticism about scientific hypotheses.
The modelers missed something — human ingenuity in discovering, extracting and innovating. Which did not just appear after 1972.
dissident wrote:The rapid decline of shale gas wells just reflects that fact that the gas volume in shale is small.
It all has to do with rock pore size and elasticity. There is simply no comparison between shale and sandstone when it comes to the volume of gas that can be stored in the rock. Frakking does not create gas it just makes the amount already there more accessible. By definition the amount of gas in a cubic meter of shale is much less than in sandstone. Shales are more elastic compared to sandstone and the pore fraction falls off faster with depth due to compression. Shales are also composed of more silt scale grains compared to sandstone. So I will take 23 years as the only legitimate estimate out there until somebody supplies something else that conforms to physical reality and not wishes.
And I second the opinion above about how you go on and on and on (and on and on and on) about climate change but almost never try to correct the cornies about peak oil. I thought this site was about peak oil? I'd much rather you share your expertise on peak oil than hear yet another rant about climate change.
SeaGypsy wrote:I am with the slow crash scenario, long emergency, new age of sail end of the spectrum of peakers. I am also on the side of immeasurable sadness at the state of my species and what we are doing to the planet. Yet I can't see any way out of the trajectory we are on; social breakdown followed by environmental breakdown. It's not doom as some brick wall we hit at speed, but a shrivelling thing; like a rotting flower.
Users browsing this forum: Paulo1 and 19 guests