pongo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time. - George Monbiot in The Guardian He writes that environmentalists have been wrong about, so called, 'peak oil'. There is plenty. Written in the form of a bombshell admission, this fortuitously rather neatly corrects a glaring disconnect in the wider argument around man made global warming .... since it never seemed entirely logical to raise concerns about the long term effects of using oil and gas whilst also simultaneously arguing that the stuff would soon run out anyhow. (On the other hand he risks them being asked what else that they were wrong to be so sure about.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 He writes that environmentalists have been wrong about, so called, 'peak oil'. There is plenty. Written in the form of a bombshell admission, this fortuitously rather neatly corrects a glaring disconnect in the wider argument around man made global warming .... since it never seemed entirely logical to raise concerns about the long term effects of using oil and gas whilst also simultaneously arguing that the stuff would soon run out anyhow. (On the other hand he risks them being asked what else that they were wrong to be so sure about.) You're being misleading. Peak oil wasn't necessarily oil running out. It'll never run out completely, there's always going to be some out there. What it's about is the availability of economically viable oil. If you change the goalposts to what's not only economically but also environmentally possible, then the available oil of course goes up. It's still a finite resource, the easy stuff's all gone, the stuff that's left is high risk (just ask BP) both for the men getting it and for the environment. The other issue is that the estimates are based on reserve calculations which are notoriously hard to get right, both for political, commercial and practical reasons. I don't really understand your point about the Climate Change connect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm just going to pull up a chair and quietly watch this one unfold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 I don't really understand your point about the Climate Change connect. The disconnect which his article indirectly addresses is around the way in which two related arguments had the potential to seem to cancel each other out. Previously they were worrying that the oil was running out sometime soon (and, like it or not, that was unarguably the headline) .... in which case the obvious conclusion would be that burning oil would therefore cease to be an environmental concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The disconnect which his article indirectly addresses is around the way in which two related arguments had the potential to seem to cancel each other out. Previously they were worrying that the oil was running out sometime soon (and, like it or not, that was unarguably the headline) .... in which case the obvious conclusion would be that burning oil would therefore cease to be an environmental concern. That was a convenient extra justification, and it hasn't gone away, but the terms need refining. Take this clip: Jeremy Gilbert, the former BP chief petroleum engineer, speaking about the potential of new production technology at an Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference a couple of years ago. “The current fields we are chasing we’ve known about for a long time in many cases,” he noted, “but they were too complex, too fractured, too difficult to chase. Now our technology and understanding [are] better, which is a good thing, because these difficult fields are all that we have left.” The Hubber curve is flawed as this article correctly points out, but that doesn't mean the peak theory is flawed. What's left is hard to get, very much more expensive to extract, has less enegergy density, and is more environmentally costly. If that's not a downside of a peak vs cheap and plentiful production, I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 Yes it demonstrates just how significantly the arguments and economics have changed since two years ago - now that the political will (and excess liquidity) no longer exists for govts to justify spending tax money subsidising potential alternatives. I wonder how long before George Monbiot maybe begins to signal a shift in his support for nuclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Yes it demonstrates just how significantly the arguments and economics have changed since two years ago - now that the political will (and excess liquidity) no longer exists for govts to justify spending tax money subsidising potential alternatives. I wonder how long before George Monbiot maybe begins to signal a shift in his support for nuclear. Fair play to him for revising his stance, far better than just stubbornly sticking with a theory even in light of changing circumstances. This could actually be positive in the long run despite Monbiots fears. Moving production to these sources is going to be expensive, and alternatives are getting better and cheaper all the time. A bit of breathing room is bad for the environment but good for energy security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Dear me, Shell have been announcing that there's only about 40 year's worth of oil remaining. Despite usage rising exponentially they've been making that announcement for the last 40 years or so. ETA the famous "Die Eco-Weenies" quote from that nice P J O'Rourke: " I love all cars, if the truth be known. We're told cars are dangerous. It's safer to drive through south central Los Angeles than to walk there. We're told cars are wasteful. Wasteful of what? Oil did a lot of good sitting in the ground for millions of years. We're told cars should be replaced with mass transportation. But it's hard to reach the drive-through window at McDonald's from a speeding train. And we're told cars cause pollution. A hundred years ago, the city streets were ankle deep in horse excrement. What kind of pollution do you want? Would you rather die of cancer at eighty or typhoid fever at nine? Cars have made us richer, freer, happier people. Life is better because of cars. Cars are good. If you don't think so, try making out on a country lane on Rollerblades, you eco-weenie." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Will this turn out to be the oil companies equivalent of fixing the Libor rate I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Wonder if Monbiot thinks the price of oil will be higher or lower in 10 years time? Supply may well grow, but what will demand do? It is exponential demand growth which is the issue, not supply, which may well grow but insufficiently to offset the increased demand - hence prices will rise. Over CO2 emissions coal is far far more relevent than oil as this is used to produce most electricity which is the base load of economic activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Not sure George is too fussed about the direction of the price of oil; his point is simply that we'll all be knackered from burning it (and other things) before it runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 We are no where even close to being at peak oil, the current price which, allowing for inflation and peoples general acceptance of the cost of a gallon of fuel, will continue to hover around the 100 dollars a barrel area. At this price it becomes much more feasible to get oil from "difficult" places but that does not just mean deep offshore. There are lots of company's now finding oil in places onshore (and shallow offshore, Ireland being the latest) and because of developments in the technology to get it out of the ground, directional drilling being one, it becomes very profitable. More stable governance in South America being another that allows whole areas that make the north sea look small being drilled. I honestly dont think we will ever run out because by the time the whole worlds wells have run dry we will of worked out some other way of powering things. Mazda for example have just announced a new highly efficient internal combustion engined range of cars, they do not see any future in the current fad for electric or dual fuel. They have developed an engine so efficient that it does not require a catalytic converter to clean up the emissions. Well done them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 We are no where even close to being at peak oil, the current price which, allowing for inflation and peoples general acceptance of the cost of a gallon of fuel, will continue to hover around the 100 dollars a barrel area. At this price it becomes much more feasible to get oil from "difficult" places but that does not just mean deep offshore. There are lots of company's now finding oil in places onshore (and shallow offshore, Ireland being the latest) and because of developments in the technology to get it out of the ground, directional drilling being one, it becomes very profitable. More stable governance in South America being another that allows whole areas that make the north sea look small being drilled. I honestly dont think we will ever run out because by the time the whole worlds wells have run dry we will of worked out some other way of powering things. Mazda for example have just announced a new highly efficient internal combustion engined range of cars, they do not see any future in the current fad for electric or dual fuel. They have developed an engine so efficient that it does not require a catalytic converter to clean up the emissions. Well done them. Blade,could you post any links to the Mazda engine,I am always interested to read about these developments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Blade,could you post any links to the Mazda engine,I am always interested to read about these developments http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17895216 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.