This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Whistleblower Says IEA Inflating Oil Resources to Avoid Panic
Score another point for peak oil proponents... Whistleblowers at the International Energy Agency (IEA) have told the Guardian newspaper (U.K.) that current oil inventories are being inflated to deter panic buying in a peak oil world. The U.S. apparently was a key proponent of the scheme.
"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.
A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.
Link to full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency
»
- 11672 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Will this be ignored like everything else...?
Good Sir, as long as the market keeps going up, I will keep my eyes and ears closed thank you very much! - Sheeperson
LOL!
Not by CNBC and the oil boosters.
IEA to cut long-term oil demand outlook next week: report
Tue Nov 3, 2009 10:15pm EST
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The International Energy Agency will "substantially" downgrade its long-term oil demand forecast in its annual energy outlook next week, the second cut in a row, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
Efforts to better manage expanding oil demand in the developed world have been more effective than first expected, the paper quoted a person familiar with the report as saying. It did not give any estimates on how deep the cut might be.
While the IEA's outlook is unlikely to affect the prevailing short-term view that the global economy's recovery from recession is reviving oil use, it is an important gauge for oil companies considering whether to build refineries or drill new wells.
The IEA and other analysts have repeatedly warned that a failure to make sufficient investments now could lead to another supply crunch in the next decade, particularly as economic growth in energy-intensive developing nations revives, but some are also growing increasingly bearish on the outlook for demand.
"The rise in global oil consumption over the next 10 years could be minimal," the paper quoted Philip Verleger, a veteran independent energy economist based in Colorado, as saying, noting that new energy-efficiency standards for everything from vehicles to building codes will help keep a tight leash on demand.
In last year's World Energy Outlook the IEA cut its annual oil demand growth forecast to 2030 from 1.3 percent to 1 percent on the basis of higher prices and slower economic growth.
It also shaved 10 million barrels a day off its long-term forecast, projecting consumption in 2030 would hit 106 million barrels a day, or about 25 percent above current levels. The Journal said it wasn't clear yet how that compares with the cuts expected in this year's forecast by the IEA.
Due to difficulties/impossibility of increasing supply as a result of of the export land model, decline rates, lack of supergiant fields recently being discovered etc the only way to avoid panic is to downgrade demand it seems.
ZH is a den of losers, conspiracy theorists and anarchists.
Would you like to renew your subscription?
and obviously the occasional person who doesnt read.
Even if he/she reads, he/she does not understand.
Thanks Mr. Obama! Coming from you, we ZH'ers take it as a compliment.
welcome to the club.
here's some tinfoil to get you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk
just don't forget to take it off when praying to the bakhunin idol set up in the back room.
...and flamers!
I don't doubt peak oil, but I highly doubt that China is really expanding. Once Chindia fall into the abyss, we get a glut of oil - in the short run. Five to ten years from now, we've got a serious problem.
Agree. The worldwide growth in oil from 2002-2007 was driven entirely by developing markets, mostly China. A big part of China's growth in demand was to build infrastructure to supply goods to sell to the U.S. and other developed markets which only were able to buy them via vendor financing. That model has collapsed. Exports were 30% of China's GDP before the bubble burst. If Chinese exports are down 20%, that means the other 70% of the Chinese economy had to grow by 20% to get to their reported 8% GDP growth.
Nicely said. I'm a buyer of oil under $30 per barrel because long term, it's a big winner.
I agree in concept. Whether it's 5, 10, or a mere 2 years I don't know.
I am soooorry. I work in OIL industry. It is actually worse than we all know. Saudi Arab will be the only one left with some black gold within 20 years. WELL, by then most of us might have perished from famine and war.
Tar-Sand ,my foot. Bloody banks are ready to take the price to $200/bbl. Dollar at 70 yen/dollar. Now, tell me baby who
gains. No rocket science needed here.
Actually,the bastards at GS are wondering how come OIL came down to below 40$ lat year despite the fact that they
had everything under control.
Well,if you become too careful and cut down on consumption
the Mfuckers won't get that FAT bonus. Can they? It is simple.
Not sure you can call "gas station attendant" working in the oil industry.
The Chinese and Indian civilizations have existed for over 5 thousand years. They were living in houses with indoor plumbing while western Europeans were living in huts and thought bathing more than once a year was a waste of time. Lets not forget that 23 out of the last 25 centuries China was the most advanced and powerful country in the world, and because of their cash reserves and cheap labor will be again.
Buffet buys a rail. Next he buys a coal company.
Buffet bought a railroad company that moves huge amounts of coal...no need to buy the coal company, yet.
Buffett keeps the company of a "collection of filthy whores and pederasts " according to Barry Ritholtz
collection of filthy whores and pederasts
No offense intended, but I believe the correct term is "peder-ass"
link to Ritholtz's comments on Buffett's friends
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/treasury-dks-goldmanfanniebrk-tax-c...
thanks for the link. interesting.
Wait. A few years ago he bought a gas pipeline company. Yes, now he needs coal to ride on the trains.
Nice to know we, the US, remain the heavies around the world. Too bad we're trying to stabilize everywhere else either thru military power or info manipulation while 20MM citizens have to rely on food stamps for basic survival. Rome burns more brightly...
Someone needs to send Obama a fiddle.
38 million on food stamps...
Ha Ha!
We are about as "heavy" as a goose-down pillow, when it comes to China!
We're still the empire and the biggest military around by far. (Not in manpower, but in capability.) But we need funding and oil to run it. Little problems.
The IEA doesn't seem to do the U.S.'s bidding when it comes to nuclear proliferation issues. Something about this report doesn't ring true to me....
He who has the lead can take the gold and the fuel. If he's hungry enough.
War is coming. And I don't mean this proxy shit were in right now.
"Five to ten years from now, we've got a serious problem."
Agreed...
:-)) LOL How about 12 month ? Saudi is actually crashing. Lots of circumstantial evidence out there !
The oil train has left the station......everyone who is not on that train will walk. Barring I/ran war, I'd be buying natural res. etf's regardless of the 3-5 year time horizon. SORRY. OH and cap and tax, or green jobs, or all that soft intellectualism about the environment, left with that oil train. Slim was not on the train.
I completely agree; but oil ETFs are tricky; they did very well in the last run up because the market was in backwardation during most of the run; now the contango and glatial movement make returns on ETFs rather slim.
Notice that this meme fits nicely with the "must act on global warming at Copenhagen" (as mentioned in the article). I don't know what the real amount of available oil is (and we won't know until we drill on the US continental shelf) but there is more available if we would just look for it. They've been telling us that drilling is pointless because "it would take 5 years to get any oil" for 30 years. So we won't drill now because it takes too long and in the future we can't drill because we didn't start in the past.
Therefore, I am a little sceptical that these UN "whistle-blowers" show up just in time for the big conference to point out that fossil fuels are running out so we might as well just go ahead and destroy our fossil fuel based civilization since it is doomed anyway.
Good thing solar and wind are so cheap and efficient. That means we don't need nuclear (especially since Yucca Flats was shut down so we have "no where" to put the waste--after spending $13B)
When the lights go out for good, maybe people will wake up to the scam but by then our economy will have collapsed and it won't matter that we could have build nuclear power plants because it will "take 5 years to get them running" and we'll be back in the 19th (or 10th) century where we are all so much healthier that we live (on average) 30 years.
We are so stupid, we deserve what we will get!
Spot on.
I wonder how much GS paid the whistle blower to make this statement.
Hat's off to you for your use of "meme"
You're instincts are spot on!!!!
The proposed waste repository is Yucca Mountain, not Yucca Flats. The flats are a nuclear testing site and could hardly be more contaminated. Yucca Mtn should have been opened for waste a decade or more ago. It's mostly Harry Reid (yes, that guy) preventing it from happening. The science on it being a safe storage site is as good as any science is going to get on any storage site. Sure beats all the 40+ year old "temporary" storage at each and every reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Flat
I highly recommend tours of the NTS, see here:
http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/tours.htm
Storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca was a terrible idea. As a proponent of expanding nuclear power, I'm glad it's dead. The need for a massive storage site was the result of Jimmy Carter's stupid decision (one of many) to ban reprocessing nuclear fuel. The spent fuel rods that come out of a commercial nuclear power plant still contain 85% of their total energy potential. France reprocesses all its spent fuel rods. Reprocessing greatly reduces the volume of waste. 40 years worth of France's waste from its 50-something nuclear reactors lie in 3 pools at one site. Advanced reactor designs may even allow for most of the other long lived radioactive isotopes to be used as fuel leaving only short lived waste that wouldn't require long term storage.
This is a good point. I didn't think of it because breeder reactors and the sort of reprocessing you talk about was largely killed off in the US before I was born. I don't know how viable this is now - depends on what has happened to the fuel in its decades in storage.
I stand by the statement that if we're going to be storing quantities of high-level waste, Yucca Mountain is the best option by far.
never knew that...thanks for sharing.
that's a greenturd you don't hear coming out of the lizard's mouth.
here's one back at ya -- undersea uranium farms:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/undersea_uranium_farms_could_be_goldmin...
Sorry, I dont follow this line of logic. The whistleblowers stating oil reserves are significantly less than they have been saying in the past, surely goes against the need to implement any cap and trade or other nonsense because the economies will contract anyway. peak oil negates the need for climate legislation, and shifts the focus to the more daunting tasks of reducing consumption, and finding some way for mankind to survive with declining oil supplies (and/or extremely high gas prices) and without economies based on exponential growth. I may be wrong but that's how it appears to me.
Hehehe, if one really cares about climate change they would cut back on ruminants (cows, sheep, etc.) and use of cement. Oil is just part of the picture. And coal probably isn't going away if oil production is declining. We have plenty of coal.
why cement?
Far more greenhouse gas comes from emissions from coal-fired power plants than cars or anything else burning oil. Peak oil is mostly irrelevant to the whole climage change issue -- particularly if the preferred alternative becomes electric cars, which are fueled by electricity, which comes from coal almost 50% of the time.
The commonality between peak oil proponents and climate change activists is the willingness to sacrifice vast amounts of economic growth and productivity for alternatives to a problem that may or may not exist.
So go long candles and wicks
So this is what the Cap and Trade is all about extending the lifespan of the Oil supremacy
!
I believe there is much more oil underground than what has been "discovered", including in the US. But while the prices are "low" it makes sense to buy it elsewhere. When prices go "higher" after several years of using existing supplies, then it makes sense to start "discovering" it closer to home.
time123
admin: http://invetrics.com
1) there are trillions of barrels of RESOURCE worldwide - but how much can be procured at a positive energy profit is a far smaller number
2)when prices go 'high' enough, world economies, built on spending less than 4% of GDP on energy, fall apart.
Peak oil is in rear view mirror - and given how unprepared our socio-economic system is, there is, effectively, zero hedge against this phenomenon (at least financially)
Shale oil within continental US is almost infinite.
There's plenty oil for decades to come once oil passes $150 per barrel / 4$ gallon.
Hydro will get more expensive than oil once electric cars clog the grids.
Clean coal for hydro is a good investment.
If you missed the oil train, the gold train and others... buy coal and uranium miners / producers now. Cheap, undervalued and lots of serious upside potential.
But our government will not let us tap those resources sadly:(
I've been reading about shale oil as the answer to the energy problem for over 30 years. From what I've read, it's questionable whether shale oil generates more energy than it costs to extract it. And then there's the environmental impact, including potential contamination of ground water. Natural gas from shale plays is a different story that has played a large part (along with the economic meltdown) in creating the current glut in natural gas.
Here's a link to an article on some of the history and difficulties of shale oil:
http://www.trib.com/article_4b82e663-e592-5d2b-b263-619593610055
Strong agree. If shale oil worked so well then the US and Canada would be among the world's largest oil producers. It would work tolerably OK if the energy inputs were free - but if we had free energy, why would we be bothering with oil shale? Its close cousin tar sands are about as bad. Somewhat commercialized in Canada but destroying mind-blowing quantities of clean water.
It is interesting though how, when the price of oil rises to the point where shale/tar-sands become profitable, the oil drilling countries increase pumping and prices go lower.
Ah...lovely...just what was needed to send oil prices parabolic as winter approaches the unemployed masses. Lovely really.
An insider told me we already have peak oil, but its a broad peak.
All peak oil states is: We are running out of cheap oil.... We will never run out of expensive oil. (Econ101: The more expensive oil gets the more cheap oil we will have)
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.
Books
$85 oil causes recessions.
Luckily, we are in a jobless recovery, not a recession - $85 oil does not apply.
Ordinarily I'd see that as mildly bullish but since current US policy responses will ultimately drive the US economy so far down it will reach the same per capita oil demand as the former USSR supplies probably aren't going to really matter that much for a decade or two.
Natural Gas:
http://www.metafilter.com/67447/China-and-India-have-reported-massive-fi...
To liquid:
http://www.bnl.gov/est/files/pdf/DM-BNL-Webpage.pdf
Hydrogenating or directly Methylating heavy oil:
http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/22-TTG-Heavy-Oil.pdf
Oops, another 60 years worth.
And south Africa did pretty well with WWII coal to oil technology.
So guess where you can put the climate change when it annoys lifestyles?
Um. Wait. The IEA is responsible for "solving" this? What, they use their little army of statisticians armed with computers and pencils, not actual drill bits, to dig out the goo and fumes?
Funny, I thought it was E&P companies, large and small.
Sorry, my bad.
Reply
Um. Wait. The IEA is responsible for "solving" this? What, they use their little army of statisticians armed with computers and pencils, not actual drill bits, to dig out the goo and fumes?
Funny, I thought it was E&P companies, large and small.
Sorry, my bad.
Reply
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/6533510/Ten-nuclear...
What, no mention of abiotic oil theory?
Hmmm.. Maybe thats because never in my life have I seen a news story describing how we don't have a goddamn clue where oil comes from. We started calling it a fossil fuel decades ago, so that must be what it is.
There are only two sources of energy on this Earth. One is the Sun. The other is energy left over from when the planet was formed. So either oil is fossil fuel, meaning creatures got their energy from the sun, died, and were converted to energy.
Or, oil is a byproduct from when the planet was formed! This would indicate there is A LOT of it, but not necessarily economically available.
130 years ago they didn't even know you could drill for oil! Imagine if science wasn't run by cartels what we would discover in the next 130.
Good question to raise, but it helps little here. Even if that theory is right, it doesn't change the fact that the major, easily pumped fields are in terminal decline. An unlimited supply of $300/bbl oil that's 5 miles deep and consumes 3/4 bbl per barrel produced isn't much different from standard peak oil theories.
Abiotic oil is a moot point. All wells follow a bell curve, meaning they deplete. If abiotic oil theory is true, then it does not recharge a well in a timeframe we would find commercial.
The most important thing about peak oil is how Ghawar performs. As goes Ghawar, so goes Saudi Arabia, and thus, the global oil market.
Two more wells are hitting water in a couple of years at gwanar.
And Matt Simmon in his book "Twilight in the Desert" takes a lot of time to explain how and how fast Ghawar is depleting.
This story should really get more press.
Also, I find it quite strange that there isn't more alarm about $80/barrel oil during the "Great Recession". Oil has routinely bottomed out in the high teens during previous recessions, including 2001. The difference this time is not purely dollar driven, nor emerging market driven. $80 oil during one of the worst recessions in recent times (with countless millions not driving to work) should be quite worrying..
perhaps they're testing the waters to see how high oil can go without cracking the economy.
cap & trade R&D
Wasn't there just a story about someone buying a ton of options for oil at a $100/barrel for November. Wow, how lucky is this story for them....I mean, they would of been screwed if this hadn't come out.... may have a shot at it now .. ...whew....
I do like the uranium play. Uber contrary.
Listen Bitches--
Warren didnt buy a damn railroad for nothin'...the old dawg knows the gig is up with oil soon...
CRS: AMERICAS COMBINED ENERGY RESOURCES LARGEST ON EARTH
Friday, October 23, 2009
Contact:
Matt Dempsey (202) 224-9797 (Inhofe) matt_dempsey@epw.senate.gov
David Lungren (202) 224-5642 (Inhofe) david_lungren@epw.senate.gov
Robert Dillon (202) 224-6977 (Murkowski)
Anne Johnson (202) 224-7875 (Murkowski)
CRS: AMERICA'S COMBINED ENERGY RESOURCES LARGEST ON EARTH
Inhofe, Murkowski Release Memo Showing U.S. Is World Leader in Conventional Fuels
Link to CRS Report
Link to Press Release
View Chart: World Fossil Fuel Resources
View Chart: World Coal Resources
View Chart: America's True Oil Potential
Washington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a preliminary government report today showing America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth. America's recoverable resources, Congressional Research Service (CRS) shows, are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. And that's without including America's absolutely immense oil shale and methane hydrates deposits.
Oil
CRS offers a more accurate reflection of America's substantial oil resources. While America is often depicted as possessing just 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil-a figure which narrowly relies on America's proven reserves of just 21 billion barrels-CRS has compiled US government estimates which show that America is endowed with 167 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This is the equivalent of replacing America's current imports from OPEC for more than 75 years.
Natural Gas
Further, CRS notes the 2009 assessment from the Potential Gas Committee, which estimates America's future supply of natural gas is 2,047 TCF-an increase of more than 25 percent just since the Committee's 2006 estimate. At today's rate of use, roughly 90 percent of which is produced domestically, this is enough natural gas to meet American demand for nearly 90 years.
Coal
The report also shows that America is number one in coal resources, accounting for more than 28 percent of the world's coal. Russia, China, and India are in a distant 2nd, 3rd, and 5th, respectively.
Sen. Inhofe: "Our overwhelming coal, natural gas, and oil resources represent tens of trillions of dollars in wealth and millions of American jobs. Whether through decree or purposeful inaction, government policies that unnecessarily restrict or prevent our ability to responsibly produce these domestic resources are threatening, and could eventually undermine, our nation's economic and national security. We should pursue an all-of-the-above strategy that advances new energy technologies but also prioritizes developing the resources we have today."
Sen. Murkowski: "By compiling the most recent and best available data, this report merely confirms what a lot of us have been saying for years: the United States has abundant supplies of natural gas, oil, and coal. Any honest conversation about job creation, national security, and affordable energy must include these resources, because they will continue to account for the bulk of our supply well into the future. The Interior Department and others in the Executive branch have every tool they need to allow production of these resources; the question is whether the Administration is willing to make that happen."
The Administration's Record: While we appreciate what President Obama has said about the need to increase domestic production of conventional fuels, nine months after taking office the actions his agencies have taken tell a different story.
- The $787 billion economic stimulus bill included no provisions to spur production of American natural gas, oil, or coal reserves.
- The Treasury Department intends to increase the oil and gas industry's taxes by $31 billion over the next 10 years, and has justified the repeal of multiple production incentives by declaring that they "encourage the overproduction of oil and natural gas" in the United States.
- The Fish and Wildlife Service has released a proposal to designate "critical habitat" for polar bears, including "areas where oil and gas exploration activities are known to occur." Should this designation become final, it could prevent energy production in a resource-rich area that covers more than 200,000 square miles.
- The Department of Energy proposed to slash all funding for ultra-deepwater oil and gas research, in order to be "consistent with [its] policy to terminate discretionary oil and gas research and development programs."
- The Interior Department extended the comment period on the new 5-Year Plan for offshore leasing by 180 days and, now that 180 days have passed, announced it has not “reached a decision yet on what the next steps are going to be.”
- The Interior Department temporarily withdrew 77 leases in Utah, and, following "nine days of on-site investigation" of the years-long leasing process, decided to allow leasing to move forward on just 17 parcels.
- The Air Force is no longer "actively pursuing" plans to develop coal-based liquid fuels, a "decision [that] represents a policy shift under the Obama administration."
- The Interior Department delayed the next round of oil shale RD&D leasing, and recently announced plans to implement a revised process that could slow the commercialization of this resource.
- The EPA has "blocked an air pollution permit" that would allow a refinery near Chicago to boost its ability to process unconventional oil.
- The EPA "withdrew the air quality permit it issued last summer for the Desert Rock coal-fired power plant" that would be built on Navajo Nation lands in northwest New Mexico using state-of-the-art environmental technology and making a valuable contribution to economic development in the area.
- The Interior Department "blocked new hardrock mining claims on 1 million acres surrounding the Grand Canyon, citing the need for continued study of the environmental impacts of both mineral exploration and mining." This decision will reduce our nation's ability to fuel emissions-free nuclear power with a secure domestic supply of uranium.
If it had not been for that criminal Kissinger protecting Israel by locking up US energy through "environmental" concerns thereby establishing Petro$$ there would be a lot available. Peak oil is another fear mongering fraud like AGW,
regards
Holy shit, NEV... Kinda out-trumps my post. Great resources to check out. Thank you!
That's why I run my heat all year long! Biaaaatch!!! Gonna let it burn, gonna let it burn, gonna let it burn. Oh buy the way my Suburban eats hybrids for breakfast.
Nev:
Its above EROEI. Yes the US has TONS of oil reserves but how much of it is recoverable is the pertinent issue. EROEI on US oil shale is 1.5 to 1. So basically, if it takes 100 barrels to get 150 barrels out of the shale, then the remaining oil is 50 barrels. If it was economicly possible it would have happened a long time ago.
theoildrum.com
lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
chrismartenson.com ch17
Yea, this is always something that is conveniently ignored by oil optimists. Its all about the efficiency. Previously when efficiency fell, we just increased the production to make up for the lost energy. Now we have falling efficiency and production. That means energy loss at an exponential rate. This is an enormous problem and people simply refuse to acknowledge its scope.
Thanks for knee capping the economy 52%ers
That is all I needed to know. It is not imperative to eat a whole meal to know that the cook is horrible.
the navajo plant is an interesting story. however, reading the link, it seems that the developers on the contrary did NOT consider the "state-of-the-art environmental technology":
Also, in the review of “best available technologies,” developers of the project didn’t include a process called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC), the EPA said. Using IGCC technology–which turns the coal into gas before burning it–would make Desert Rock better able to control air pollution.
While many consider IGCC to be an experimental technology, it’s currently being used in at least two other coal-burning power plants, and the state argued in its appeal that it should have at least been studied as an option.
here's the thing though: gasification is a 4000 year old forge technology and can done relatively cheaply. and not only can it be done with coal, it can be done with garbage. and the waste produced, bio-char, can be made into a rich humus soil.
waste plant, power plant, food plant all in one. how's that for vertical integration?
more details here: http://www.chickenjohn.com/mayor/innovation.html
http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/
Available for download on iTunes. Next to the latest Miley Cyrus album (or Taylor Swift, whatever you preference is), probably the best $10 you'll ever spend. Highly recommended, but do not watch on a full stomach.
OR, download it HERE for FREE (just like the rest of your music library):
http://rapidshare-com-files-movies.blogspot.com/2008/11/crude-awakening-...
Read Jim Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency" if you need a primer on peak oil, alternative energy and the interesting dilemma we face as a species. Not saying it's unsolvable, but it's a lot more murky than the happy talk about vast resources would suggest. We are a poat-industrial society built and designed on the premise of cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Change the energy cost factor even slightly and the entire economic system collapsesas "profits" evaporate and losses mount. Hence the concept of "sustainability."
Sorry, but "peak oil" is a crock, promulgated by people who have a vested interest in crisis pricing of the resource. I can explain this in detail, but only to another engineer. Also, who has any reason to believe the IEA, one way or another? Or some "whistleblower" associated therewith? Me, I care not a lot, since I have my very own gas well on my farm. THAT's a hedge you can believe in !
You have an interesting perspective; one that I would like to learn more from. I envy you, in as where having your own gas well on your own farm IS and INCREDIBILE hedge!
I am curious to know why you feel Peak Oil is a crock. In my opinion, the points that Hubbert laid out in 1956 are rooted in sound logic: I'm talking about the idea of fossil fuels being a finite resource; the rate of oil discoveries will, therefore, need to diminish as time continues forwards; likewise, maximum capacity will also need to decline as time moves forwards. I think that the only variable open to speculation is exactly WHERE we are on those curves right now.
There have been various method to account for that: The most popluar estimates put us around peak production in the next 5 to 15 years. Some are more generous, while others are less. Where is your major point of contention?
Is it with where we lie on the curve? It is with the eventual decline in new resource finds, and then a decline in subsequent production? Is it with whether oil is a finite resource or not?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I'm always open minded and enjoy learning new perspectives. I'd like to learn more about yours.
Thanks. And for those not familiar with Hubbert's Peak Oil theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory
Explain away, you might be surprised how much technical knowledge the readers here have, or have access to. This line reads as BS, so please, write your explanation.
Your on the wrong blog for a debunking of peak oil. Make your way over to theoildrum.com and lock horns with the engineers over there who will give you a run for your money. They don't take kindly to allegations of vested interests and so you'll have to prove a comment like that.
OK, I'm a physicist...and I'm all ears. FYI, here's what a majority of geologists think:
Geologists Vote that Peak Oil is a Concern
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5947
Either this source is telling the truth or it's a ploy to push the cap and trade agenda.
I'm not sure what to believe. If we don't find alternative energy sources soon enough we will face peak oil, but the question is when. Some say it may happen within a few years, while others claim there's oil for the next couple of decades and some even believe there's plenty of oil for well over hundred years.
i'm old enough to remember peak coal, peak wood, peak gold, peak silver, and when i'm gone i'll remember peak air.
anyone remember peak misinformation?
Misinformation? Your comment betrays is the extreme selfishness and lack of foresight of your generation. The time to act for peak oil and all other peaks was 40 years ago, when US production peaked--take a look for yourself at US production numbers.
It never ceases to amaze me how willfully ignorant so many of your generation are; I have nothing but distain and bitterness for those who have left those of my generation with such a colossal mess to deal with: resources depleted, currency in crisis, and a bunch of cynical, pill-popping geriatrics who'll be lucky to get their diapers changed.
Fuck you, sir.
1+ The world will be generations from recovering from
these people --if ever.
+1000
the only thing that matters is peak credit...it is one resource that can dissappear as surely as an Empire...
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/
for some time now the Ruskies have been looking "outside the square" at ensuring their own independence on energy for state security.
They are most certainly corect on this issue as deeper & deeper wells are discovering crude/hydrocarbons where previously none were thought to exist.
Of course NGOs, Govts & Oil producers would like you to think "its all over, Rover". It keeps the price up.
Don't forget that the Chinese are playing the Kissinger game and are gobbling up everyone else's resources while proving, then locking up, their own. When they have dined at all other tables and the only table with food on it is China's. look out.
regards.
Assuming for argument that abiotic oil exists (I have discussed it with geologists and the reply has been "we're still studying that") -
To be commercially useful, oil needs to not only exist, it must be recoverable to the surface at a useful rate (not ounces a day) and at a tolerable energy balance (no point using 1 barrel of oil to pump out 1.01 barrels of oil). Show me a superdeep well in a zone not otherwise associated with oil that meets both these tests. Maybe, maybe not.
The second link of the left of that "energy" site is anti-gravity. Credibility vaporized.
I am looking for the link on zerohedge talking about jp morgan buying oil and storing it in oil in the middle east.
Could someone put that link back up again.
I call it connecting the DOTS.
Heads up, people.
Watch for how this plays as regards reduced consumption. Here's the buzzphrases . . . "increasing use of hybrid cars and other forms of energy efficiency" . . . "increased CAFE standards" . . . "greater use of mass transit".
Here's what you won't hear:
GDP growth overlays oil consumption precisely. Consumption is reducing because GDP has reduced. If consumption is staying down, it's because GDP is, too.
As for oil shale and all these supposed other sources of "infinite" oil that needs only to have the price increase to make them happen . . . . TEN YEARS. Think in terms of 10 years. That's how long it takes production to get underway at one of these hyper expensive oil extraction projects THAT HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED.
It doesn't MATTER if there's plenty of oil shale. What matters is the project to get it takes 10 years. People are going to starve long before then.
This is too damn funny, really. Anytime "Peak Oil" phrase comes up on ZH, there's a ton of experts jumping in with "drill, drill, drill!" and abiotic oil and stuff like that. You know what? EROI is going down. Rate of discoveries of giant fields is declining. Current giant fields are being depleted (Mexico, North Sea, etc) at an increasingly rapid rate. It's not all doom and gloom, of course. There is still plenty of oil around. HOWEVER, THERE IS LESS "CHEAP" OIL AROUND. It costs more to get each new barrel of oil from newly discovered fields. And the prices haven't REALLY spiked through the roof yet because demand from the real economy is still subdued and mainly driven by speculation. Try to get your brains around that. How hard is it?
http://www.theoildrum.com/
Umm...but..but...we thought the crash in oil prices last year was due to "deflation", no?
With respect to recent discussion about oil decline rates, we are exceptionally making available the respective chapter of last year's WEO 2008.
10 November 2009
FIELD-BY-FIELD ANALYSIS OF OIL PRODUCTION
Is decline accelerating?
Our field-by-field analysis of decline rates allows us to obtain a reasonable estimate
of the average decline rates for all the fields in the world, weighted by production. All
the decline rates presented so far in this chapter are based on field-by-field production
data from our database, covering 798 fields. The average size of these fields —
predominantly super-giants and giants — is significantly larger than the average size of
all the fields in the world. The 580 fields included in our analysis of post-peak decline
rates produced 40.5 mb/d of crude oil in 2007 — equal to 58% of world production.
...we estimate that the average observed decline rate worldwide is 6.7%. Were
that rate to be applied to 2007 crude oil production, the annual loss of output would
be 4.7 mb/d.
http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=855
China once again sells record-level of cars to their countrymen. Of course China **vastly** eclipses the USA in population so think of the growth over the years. Hmmm, won't those cars need oil/gas? Oh well, go ahead and lower the predicted demand within the report.
Does anyone really doubt peak oil any more? If so how do they explain the production declines in USA, Mexico, North Sea, etc. etc?
The only fields not in decline are not subject to outside audits (saudi arabia). Coincidence?
Sorry, I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Global Warming and Peak OIL. I don't buy it.
Has anyone seen the size of the oil fields discovered off Brazil? If we started looking in more places...I bet we would find more oil.
Don't beleive the hype.
It has taken them 6 years, but the IEA has admitted to peak oil themselves in their report publishd in Paris earlier today. IEA World Energy Outlook Executive Summary
OPEC countries will need to come up with 2 million barrels per day just to replace depletion of NON Opec and they are dealing with decline themselves in most of their super giant oil fields.
If it makes you feel better I dont believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and believe climate change is as natural a part of this planet as day and night.
Certainly dont believe the hype, but its hard to argue with the data.
Yes, what is it, 4 miles below the ocean floor in an area where the floor is more than a mile below the surface? That'll be fast, cheap and reliable I'm sure. Oh, and NO ONE has been looking for oil in more places. That's why all the majors employ thousands of petroleum geologists. So they can sit around not looking for oil.
Agreed. Those resources are already factored into the downward curve. That's why it's a curve not an L. The important thing is the Return On Energy Invested. As R&D goes up return goes down.
dude we sent geologist out in the 50's to located resources,
a few years ago so did China, they are working in Africa to lock up key resources.
Alfred E. Newman
I tend to be in your corner. I would say that we have passed the peak of oil that is easily and economically accessible in friendly, Westernized countries. Whether we have passed the peak in other locations is unknowable to us. Furthermore, the analysis is subject to change as technology is capable of making certain oil plays (shale seems like an especially good example here) far more economically accessible in the future than it is today.
Who cares what a flat-earther clown believes? Just get back on your tiny, tiny tricycle and peddle away, circus boy.
I there's a correlation between gold going up and peak oil. As the world economy contracts the paper games are increasingly hard to play
Exactly.
>>
Sorry, I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Global Warming and Peak OIL. I don't buy it.
Has anyone seen the size of the oil fields discovered off Brazil? If we started looking in more places...I bet we would find more oil.
>>
It's not religion, dood. It's not about "believe". It's about numbers. This is the problem. BP's find in the Gulf of Mexico and the finds off Brazil get labeled with words. "Giant". "Elephant". "Enormous". And then the numbers get buried at the end of the article with no comparison numbers.
The New Fields Aren't Anywhere Near Enough. Look at the numbers and the possible recovery ratios from them. See THROUGH the words. Almost all of those fields are labeled "oil and natural gas".
Those fields are deep. Deep means thermally hot. The hotter it is, the more likely hydrocarbons are gas and not oil. We don't need more natural gas. Eighteen wheel heavy freight transport trucks that bring food to shelves in cities don't run on natural gas and never will.
When you can tell me what the core of the earth is composed of, I will belive what is located below the crust. For there to be peak anything there needs to be a definite amount established. As long as they discover new fields we have not reached peak oil. Is the era of cheap oil over? I don't know, and don't proclaim to. But to be so sure that is quite omniscient point of view. As for 18 wheelers not running on nat gas, the original diesel engine was intended to use coal dust. And there is plenty of coal.
I don't care how much oil is 10 or 20 miles underground, it's not recoverable from that depth. EROEI.
The diesel was designed to run on peanut oil.
There is plenty of coal. Could make for a dirty future.
If it came from any other source other than Guardian I would give it more credibility. That "source" is the only thing keeping me skeptical.
All modern military combat vehicles seem to run on oil derivatives - if you don't have transportable energy, well the vehicles are rather pointless and war is impossible.
If we use up the rest of the world's resources before tapping into our own, we win in the long run.
China has joined the game and is also trying to secure/use up world wide resources before tapping into their own.
I sincerely hope that with an executive order they have drilled in the national parks and that the wells are just capped in case of emergency or when we use up the rest of the world's resources.
It's like a James Bond plot, control oil and control the world.
When the US Navy starts ordering all its new ships with nuclear reactors, you'll know there's trouble ahead.
Peak Oil , shmeek oil. Am I the only one on the site that remembers that "Peak Oil" was the same hysteria in 1973? Consider this. There is a shale oil reservoir under Wyoming and several adjacent states that is greater than all the oil in the Middle East. Raytheon and a company CF Technologies discovered how to economically extract oil from shale over three years ago, before the story disappeared. A recent discovery under Louisiana may be equal in size.
All is manipulation. All are lies.