[Graeme]

Debunking Peak Oil Debunkers

On an issue fraught with the potential for so much societal disruption as peak oil presents (like its kin, climate change), and the reality--the necessity--of expansive government involvement in both guiding adaptation and assisting citizens suffering most from the consequences, it should come as no surprise at all that we have a dedicated cottage industry working double-time to dispute any concerns that the rate of oil production has peaked (or at least leveled off for about a decade).

When we max out on what can be produced, and demand continues apace--if not increasing--then smaller supply for greater demand creates a math problem most third-graders can figure out. But when a great deal of profit is at stake, coupled with the future viability of a once-great, leading industry and the reality that the great free market god does not have answers, then the disinformation campaign revs its engines for a full-speed-ahead assault on the facts.

Sound familiar? Tobacco companies? Climate change? Republican tax and economic policy? The fight against same-sex marriage? The playbook is the same. It works, of course, although it's important to note that tactics don't allow for much integrity or full, honest disclosure of facts to the general public. Doing so would make it quite obvious that opposition and denial rests on foundations of pseudo-facts just as sturdy as a large pile of cotton candy.

A fact tossed about in recent weeks without explanation or context (amazing how much those attributes can restore reality to an otherwise irrational bit of nonsense!) is how much U.S. oil production has increased in just a few short years. The truth: it has!

That's wonderful ... at least up to the point where those statistics are then contrasted with the actual, fact-based peak in production more than four decades ago. Add in the realities of greater expense; increasing energy expenditures; the need to maintain high prices; high decline rates from the newer sources which in turn require ever-more and ever-more-costly drilling just to keep up; depletion of conventional crude oil fields relied upon for decades; environmental degradation, together with an assortment of other facts, and pretty soon the story told is not quite as charming.

evworld

[dashster]

If you change the discussion, from "when will oil peak" to "when will we begin running into supply/demand issues with oil", then the ball is in the Cornucopians court. Although there have been increases in total liquids that they will claim disproves the "Peak Oil theory", the price has gone up drastically. Supply hasn't matched demand. In order for everything to be copacetic with oil, they have to come up with some reason why oil has risen in price that makes it's rise temporary in nature - that is, we will see a drop in prices to historic levels the way we did in the 1980's from the highs of the oil shocks after certain events occur. What they will point to is Nigeria or Iran or Libya having political instability and turmoil which has caused production issues that is causing the rise in price. If and when all the OPEC countries are at normal production - and prices are still high - I hope that the Peak Oil Debunkers will at least admit there is a problem. Although I suppose some will still point to "environmentalists in America" keeping massive amounts of oil from being exploited.

[ralfy]

One has to keep in mind that accessing other sources of oil because of lack of production from current sources doesn't debunk peak oil but confirms it.

[KaiserJeep]

One has to keep in mind that accessing other sources of oil because of lack of production from current sources doesn't debunk peak oil but confirms it.

Roger that.

The other thing to realize is that the Long Emergency has begun. Our economy is broken by $4/gallon gasoline and $5/gallon diesel fuel. It is causing a steady escalation in the price of everything we need to buy to live, from food to clean drinking water, clothing, medical care, and energy for heating and cooling a residence.

YES of course the currency is also inflating, but the underlying trend is a rise in the cost of everything. It is terrible news for anyone on a fixed income. BAU can continue for a while, but IMHO the currency will pass the curvy part of the exponential curve within the decade, and spike uncontrollably upwards in between 10 and 15 years.

My boss is only in his 40's, but he is a German who heard about Hyperinflation from his Grandparents. When I told him I thought we were headed there he got very quiet, he understands what it means.

[ROCKMAN]

dashter - "Supply hasn't matched demand". And this is where I might get a little picky with you. In my world supply has always met demand. But that’s how I define “demand”: that which you can afford to buy…not what you want/need to buy. With price as the moderator supply will always matches demand because as supplies diminish prices increase. And that, in turn, decreases demand. IOW when oil was selling for $20/bbl there were still many folks who couldn't afford to buy much oil. But supply met demand. And when oil went over $140/bbl everyone that could afford it had all the oil they could buy available to them. So again supply met every bit of demand at that time.

“Peak Oil Debunkers will at least admit there is a problem.” There are some who never will because they keep focusing on the rather unimportant metric IMHO: how much oil is coming out of the ground and if or when the “magical” date of PO has or will happen. I won’t waste my time with such debates because it isn’t very relevant IMHO. As I just said elsewhere the true focus, as you point out, is price:

IMHO 99.8% of the US citizens don’t give a rat’s ass about the date of global PO, whether we’re on a plateau or how much oil will come out of the Bakken/EFS. All they care about is what they pay to fill their gas tanks up and to keep their homes warm/air conditioned. Based on that metric “PO” hit them hard some years ago when oil prices tripled as a result of the POD…not because of PO.

Global PO has yet to occur: we are producing more oil than ever before. And the world is paying about $2 TRILLION/year more for oil than when it was producing less. The US is seeing a surge in oil production. And we’re paying about $350+ BILLION/year more than before the production surge. We are also sending more $’s overseas to buy imported oil today than when we we’re importing more bbls 10 years ago.

Folks are free to follow the bbls to their hearts content. Me, I think I’ll just follow what’s really important: the money. LOL

[Dybbuk]

The thing that bugs me about the rhetoric of peak oil deniers is that the discussion with them isn't about what to do on a policy basis, or even about what will happen in the future vis-a-vis energy production. It's about whether to even have the discussion. Deniers act like it's so obvious that the free market is a magic box that will solve all problems, that it's silly to even talk about the future of energy. {Meanwhile, some of the same people think it's not silly at all to have a discussion about whether the earth is only 6,000 years old}.

[ROCKMAN]

Dybbuk - "Deniers act like it's so obvious that the free market is a magic box that will solve all problems." But that's their real problem, isn't it: where's the magic? The world is producing more oil then every before in the history of the planet and oil is selling at a yearly average higher then ever before in history. Or put another way: since 2002 the global oil production rate has increased about 14% while prices have increased over 250%. So again where is this "market magic" the cornucopians say will save us.

Ya know I've asked ever corny that same question when they've fluttered through here and not one has taken the challenge. Go figure. LOL.

[StarvingLion]

If only the Gas Maggots and Oil Vermin would bugger off...

they can shove their dependency scams up their ass.

[copious.abundance]

Predictably, this guy is clueless:

So, for example, while it's true that [US] oil production has increased recently in totals much greater than most observers imagined just a few short years ago, it's worth noting the higher totals are not the same resources we've long labeled as oil. Crude oil--what most of us recognize as supplied to us from the Middle East along with past efforts in California, Texas, and elsewhere, is not what's responsible for the hike in totals

All the growth in supply since [2004] was not crude but unconventional liquids, including natural gas liquids, biofuels, refinery gains, synthetic oil from tar sands, and other marginal resources. These liquids are by no means equivalent to crude [and] hide the fundamental issue of the depletion of mature fields. ...

WRONG-O, BUDDY

[copious.abundance]

The thing that bugs me about the rhetoric of peak oil deniers...

The thing that bugs me about the rhetoric of peak oil proponents is that they try to hide their desire for peak oil to occur with a bunch of pseudo-facts and half-truths in an attempt to try to persuade themselves and others that peak oil is about to occur. Any day now. I have no problem with people who say, "I don't care if we might be capable of producing 200 million bpd, I don't want it to happen" - for whatever reason. At least they're honest. However, people like the guy in the article above who resort to lies (such as which kinds of oil the US has been producing more of) in order to try to persuade people that, yes, peak oil is just around the corner and we should all head for the hills, are pretty much big, fat liars. Clearly the guy who wrote that article is wishing and hoping for peak oil to occur, the sooner the better, and so to assure himself and others he comes up with this completely bogus, dishonest and a-factual argument filled with lies. I hate dishonest people. With a passion.

[Dybbuk]

The thing that bugs me about the rhetoric of peak oil proponents is that they try to hide their desire for peak oil to occur

Yeah, the psychology of the parties to the conversation is an interesting topic on its own, isn't it? {Though not necessarily important, compared to the survival and prosperity of civilization}

I can understand how someone who believes in imminent peak oil would come to desire it...when they try to warn people with the best of intentions, and then encounter only mockery and dismissiveness. How long can someone cling to the sentiment of "I hope I'm wrong" when they know that being wrong will result in a barrage of sneers and "I told you sos"?

Personally, I'm not much invested in either side of the debate, but I desire peak oil (the sooner the better) for a different reason: because the higher you get, the further you have to fall. A shallower peak could mean less misery on the way back down. Seems to me that the best scenario imaginable would be a very gradual decline...enough to provide an incentive for efficiency gains and alternative energy, while also allowing enough time to get it done before a total state of emergency sets in.

[copious.abundance]

I can understand how someone who believes in imminent peak oil would come to desire it

The people I was referring to, it's the other way around. It's not that they first believe in imminent peak oil and then come to desire it, it's that they first desire it and then do everything they can to convince themselves and others that it's imminent. To these people, peak oil is a means to an end - either for environmental reasons, because they get thrills from economic collapse (which in itself can be for various reasons), or some other reason. So they go around screaming "Peak oil! Peak oil!" hoping that it will arrive so as to achieve the goal that they seek. But the peak oil itself is not what they're really interested in, they're mostly interested in their goal.

Now, that's OK with me that they have some goal they'd like to reach (even if I disagree with it). What annoys me is the way they lie, exaggerate and preach all kinds of half-truths about the tool (peak oil) they think will help bring about their goal, rather than just go around saying they want to reach such-and-such goal.

IOW, if you want the world to stop emitting CO2, just say, "I want the world to stop emitting CO2, and so we need to stop using oil. And I don't care how much oil we can produce, I'm interested in how much we should produce."

Instead of an honest tactic like that, you've got guys like the one in the article above who basically go around telling everyone The Sky Is Falling, when in reality they have no clue whatsoever whether or not The Sky Is Falling, but since they hope The Sky Is Falling they go around telling everyone it is, and come up with all kinds of dubious arguments to try to convince everyone that it is. When the sky fails to fall on the predicted date, they just kick the can down the road and forecast it for some other point in the future. During all this they're rarely honest about their real desire and focus all their attention on the dubious arguments. Those are the people who deserve all the scorn and ridicule they get.

[ralfy]

POD is driven by PO as the high oil prices are driven by crude oil production reaching a peak and costs for finding new oil going up.

[JV153]

Peak oil consumption in several European countries was already many years ago, e.g, Italy: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... ips=IT#pet, Greece: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... ips=GR#pet, Germany, http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... ips=GM#pet, France: http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-da ... ips=FR#pet. A result of combination of no oil production growth and transfer of oil wealth from the west to the east (and possibly aging populations ) .
I don't know what "goal" declining petroleum production will result in except increased efficiency in the transportation sector and increased concentration of population in urban centres (a trend well underway since before 1950) and a shift from oil as a transportation fuel to electricity. It's too bad that road construction and resurfacing is still most easily done with asphalt as use of concrete requires a complete redoing. Dirt roads are easier to make but difficult to maintain. Electricity won't replace the raw material uses of oil.

The U.S is the only country in the world (along with Canada) seeing a resurgence of oil production exclusively due to LTO and tar sands. The US will move into a similar position to what Europe is in within 10-12 years.

[Pops]

Once the conversation crosses over the line from trying to understand the situation and arguing facts and even a POV to ad hom generalizing, fact cherry-picking, belittling opponents' personalities and innermost motivations, and of course employing the largest and brightest font and photo possible the whole discussion becomes rather boring.