[mmasters]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?

[Econ101]

I think it has been in the news for some time and even though they have been continually burned on the issue they keep trying:

In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California. In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas.

In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.

In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

Then the guy who claimed to know called it peak oil and we were supposed to have run out already. He was absolutly wrong about everything, much like these guys:

The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth New American Library, 1972.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

But, peak oil has evolved. It no longer means running out but changes with each new discovery and price fluctuation. Last I heard peak oil now means high prices or something and global warming is now climate change or something and Al Gore, selling convenient untruths, is now richer than Mitt Romney!

[Ibon]

The media will follow, never lead. Peak Oil will be embraced when liquid fuel constraints are no longer even debated.

[mmasters]

The media will follow, never lead. Peak Oil will be embraced when liquid fuel constraints are no longer even debated.

So what's that, 5-10 years?

Would be nice to see the media lead on this one once it is accepted.

[Econ101]

Right now there is no evidence beyond speculation there will ever be any liquid fuel constraints although the media will often say something contrary. Are they leading or following?

[careinke]

Right now there is no evidence beyond speculation there will ever be any liquid fuel constraints although the media will often say something contrary. Are they leading or following?

Really? I could show you evidence with just a glass of water, or perhaps you believe in abiotic oil????

[Econ101]

I would imagine you plan on draining the water until the glass is empty? LOL. You make your point about the nature of a supposed finite resource, but you miss the point on the huge quantities involved. Do you know how big the earth is? Is it a lot bigger than your glass? The quantities involved are going to supply us for as long as need be. Of course as I posted earlier there have been worries about the size of the glass since the 1800s. They have persisted through time and continually been proven wrong:

Claim: In 1974, the US Geological Survey announced “at 1974 technology and 1974 price” the US had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

Natural gas production is 3-4 times what it was in 1974 and by some estimates we have several thousands of yrs supply remaining, at current use levels.

More on the falacy of the glass size:

Claim: In 1952 the US President’s Materials Policy Commission concluded that by the mid-1970s copper production in the US could not exceed 800,000 tons and that lead production would be at most 300,000 tons per year.
Data: But copper production in 1973 was 1.6 million tons, and by 1974 lead production had reached 614,000 tons – 100% higher than predicted.

Alarmists have always pointed to a small container, like a glass, and said the world would end because resources were limited. Take a look at this whopper:

In 1865, Stanley Jevons (one of the most recognized 19th century economists) predicted that England would run out of coal by 1900, and that England’s factories would grind to a standstill.

So, keep substituting the almost limitless volume of the earth for the very small and obviously minute volume of the glass, it still wont speed up depletion to any time frame being postulated by those claiming we are approaching a limited supply of liquid fuels.

One of the private space faring companies has announced they are designing and building a fleet of mining vessels to exploit mineral resources on asteroids. We will never run out of anything. Even though we could read this alarming work 40 yrs ago:

The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The LiThe Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021. (See Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library, 1972. mits to Growthary, 1972.

[SamInNebraska]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?

What do you mean? It was front page news back in 2005, seems like a pretty decent "embrace" to me?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/in ... usat_x.htm

[SamInNebraska]

I think it has been in the news for some time and even though they have been continually burned on the issue they keep trying:

In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California. In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas.

In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.

In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

It doesn't seem fair to reference all the past times people claimed we were running out and whatnot, because obviously the most current one is the only one which counts.

But, peak oil has evolved. It no longer means running out but changes with each new discovery and price fluctuation. Last I heard peak oil now means high prices or something and global warming is now climate change or something and Al Gore, selling convenient untruths, is now richer than Mitt Romney!

[/quote]

Do you have any reference to a generally accepted definition of peak oil? While your comment seems to describe peak oil website topics, surely someone has defined peak oil, pinned down the price, or decline, or peak part, or something which can then be compared to prior claims and then the world will know that YES, THIS is peak oil (versus the running out talk, plateaus, non-terminal declines followed by inclines, declines which aren't, etc etc).

I checked the ASPO website and they just don't even have a decent definition with which I can test facts against.

[SamInNebraska]

Right now there is no evidence beyond speculation there will ever be any liquid fuel constraints although the media will often say something contrary. Are they leading or following?

Obviously you can't say "liquid fuels" because that allows in fuel manufacturing. Peak oil is only abut all the old, easy to drill, crude oil based fuels, it is completely something different to talk about ethanol, the use of light hydrocarbons to mix with gasoline, the use of drip gas or condensates to make fuels, or creating synthetic fuels from natural gas, coal, heavy oils, tar sands, and all the other things we could make fuels from for the next century or three. Those just don't COUNT, their low EROEI dooms them to being expensive, apparently like $100/bbl or something!

Don't know what you've missed in the recent past Econ, but $100 oil translates to something like $2.80/gal gasoline in big chunks of the US and I can barely afford to run my 6000# armored SUV to the grocery store on the opposite end of the state more than twice a day! So liquid fuels prices are completely unacceptable, only crude based fuels count, and we are running out way too fast, leaving us with only this terrible expensive stuff. Unacceptable.

[mmasters]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?

What do you mean? It was front page news back in 2005, seems like a pretty decent "embrace" to me?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/in ... usat_x.htm

I mean embrace it as a crisis and give it at least somewhat the status it deserves rather than just a cover story.

[Plantagenet]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?...
I mean embrace it as a crisis and give it at least somewhat the status it deserves rather than just a cover story.

Not bloody likely.

The MSM isn't going to run stories on peak oil and oil production decline now that oil production has stopped declining and instead is going up in the USA.

The MSM news stories instead are going to be all about frakking and politicians promising energy independence and oil production going up in the USA and all the jobs being created in North Dakota and stuff like that, because that is what is happening right now.

Maybe someday ten years from now the MSM will cover peak oil, when oil production in the USA reverses again and heads back down, but I wouldn't look for it to happen any time soon unless Ghawar production suddenly falls rapidly or something else like that happens.

[mmasters]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?...
I mean embrace it as a crisis and give it at least somewhat the status it deserves rather than just a cover story.

Not bloody likely.

The MSM isn't going to run stories on peak oil and oil production decline now that oil production has stopped declining and instead is going up in the USA.

The MSM news stories instead are going to be all about frakking and politicians promising energy independence and oil production going up in the USA and all the jobs being created in North Dakota and stuff like that, because that is what is happening right now.

Maybe someday ten years from now the MSM will cover peak oil, when oil production in the USA reverses again and heads back down, but I wouldn't look for it to happen any time soon unless Ghawar production suddenly falls rapidly or something else like that happens.

Yeah I'm thinking it's gotta start happening when we start stepping off the cliff. Until then it's not gonna.

[SeaGypsy]

I think we are seeing the psychological tendency to normalize anything. Things are more or less as they have been aren't they (apart from expensive fuel/ which has happened before and is likely cyclical)?
Even when we hit decline hard, the normalization trait will likely prevail and the media will likely continue to pander to psychology. Same as with AGW.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Maybe someday ten years from now the MSM will cover peak oil, when oil production in the USA reverses again and heads back down, but I wouldn't look for it to happen any time soon unless Ghawar production suddenly falls rapidly or something else like that happens.

In ten or so years, the average US fleet mileage will be MUCH higher due to the CAFE standards, assuming the GOP doesn't somehow get its act together, take over Capitol Hill, and repeal those standards. (Given recent trends, I wouldn't bet on it short term).

Now, due to Chindia et al, gasoline might cost, say $7 or even $10 a gallon, but if I am getting 60 mpg in my 3rd or 4th generation Toyota hybrid (City) instead of 20ish mpg in my current 2003 midsized sedan -- then my deliveries will cost a bit more, but overall, economically, why do I care?
And an obvious side effect is that the overall liquid fuels consumption goes down proportionally. So ecologically, we're only dumping a third of the hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, and economically its roughly a wash.

As a moderate, this really is NOT looking like a reason to panic. In fact, I'd say we're far better off net fuel wise, as I'm sure we'll be producing FAR more than a third of the oil we're producing now.

We have serious short term problems. This isn't one. Longer term, other solutions will be needed. But that's far more than ten years away now that we're actually focusing on easy things like seriously raising US CAFE standards.

[SamInNebraska]

Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?

What do you mean? It was front page news back in 2005, seems like a pretty decent "embrace" to me?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/in ... usat_x.htm

I mean embrace it as a crisis and give it at least somewhat the status it deserves rather than just a cover story.

The MSM embrace it as a crisis? Before it will be recognized as one? Why doesn't it just CAUSE the crisis and then no embracing will be required, we'll all be running around trying to figure out what to do. Like Sandy and Katrina, crisis doesn't need embraced, it just needs to BE. It only needs hyped by the MSM when it isn't working out as expected, or some interest needs drummed up. Like for a Britney Spears concert.

You are SO right about it being more than just a cover story, but it also needs to be a crisis which slaps a soccer mom right in the face and says, "no bitch, no fuel for your fat American ass in your monster truck to haul your 70# kid to practice because you thought it would be cool to enter him in a league the next town over", now THAT would cause some ruckus!

[Beery1]

...it also needs to be a crisis which slaps a soccer mom right in the face and says, "no bitch, no fuel for your fat American ass in your monster truck to haul your 70# kid to practice because you thought it would be cool to enter him in a league the next town over", now THAT would cause some ruckus!

I'm hoping it will make a lot of Americans lose their fat asses, due to having to find ways to work and to shop that don't involve sitting on those fat asses in that monster truck.

[SamInNebraska]

...it also needs to be a crisis which slaps a soccer mom right in the face and says, "no bitch, no fuel for your fat American ass in your monster truck to haul your 70# kid to practice because you thought it would be cool to enter him in a league the next town over", now THAT would cause some ruckus!

I'm hoping it will make a lot of Americans lose their fat asses, due to having to find ways to work and to shop that don't involve sitting on those fat asses in that monster truck.

A post peak lifestyle can certainly be healthier for a majority of Americans as they bicycle and walk more, better for the environment as they take mass transit instead of buying monster trucks and whatnot, but it should be happening already, and while it is, it isn't happening fast enough. All of this hopey changey stuff pumping up new oil production, crashing natural gas prices, Americans using less exacerbating the entire side effects of peak thing, it has been just awful of late. Except for one thing...the longer it continues, the longer it will be before they build that damnable pipeline through Nebraska.

[ralfy]

They will, but by then it will no longer matter.