NYTimes mis-information on Peak Oil
The NYTimes carried an Op-Ed column, contributed to by an Oil Consultant, that poorly attempted to "debunk" the myths of peak oil by making use of nothing but mockery. Of course, there is an ongoing open thread on discussing this very article and in the usual TOD style, the comments speak for themselves!
I was reminded of how the "Intelligent Design ( Read more... )
I was reminded of how the "Intelligent Design ( Read more... )
That page is funny - it claims
"In fact, many believe that we have oil in sufficient quantities for some time to come."
... and quotes "The Long Emergency" out of context. Its just like the Intelligent Design folks who keep saying "Evolution built things in random" and keep quoting out of context. Whoever says Peak Oil is the end of oil is clueless about the very simple phenomenon of a finite resource's extraction, depletion profile. Peak oil only means the end of Cheap Oil but that means a lot in an Economy and Way of life which is ultimately driven by profits. Its the beginning of the end of an economy that Must Grow At All Costs. It means, if one economy has to grow, the economy needs more liquid fuels to power it due to the way things are done today (JIT economics, heavy use of transportation and loss of local industries in many places in preference of a more reactive, yet oil shock prone, centralised system of manufacturing). So that means, if one economy has to do well, with only lesser oil in a given year, atleast someone else's needs won't be met. That means, it would be time to make choices instead of having more discretionary liquid fuel
Peak oil means the 6 billion that have been created by the excess food oil could produce will already be well on their way to becoming 7 billion in 20 years. Yet, there won't be _more_ oil (unlike what we've thus far managed to find along the growth trajectory) but only lesser and lesser year after year. Even if a magical technology springs up and lets us keep up the rate of production higher for a few more years, it will only result in a steeper decline rate since its a finite resource, afterall. The faster you go, the harder will be the crash.
This site seems to define "Peak Oil" itself as follows:
The term peak oil, shorthand for 'global oil-production peak', "means that a turning point will come when the world produces the most oil it will ever produce in a given year and, after that, yearly production will inexorably decline due to the structural lack of innovation regarding exploration led by ExxonMobil's 'cheap oil' strategy: global disorder of 'incorporated governance' - budget crime under market pressure
So peak oil is due to ExxonMobil? Nice try confusing the reader.
Reply
1. Abiogenetic Oil, that this site so adorns to debunk peak oil, is a Hypothesis. In contrast to the well established Biological origin theory of petroleum origins. The ones who believe in it are like the Geneticists who believe in "Intelligent Design".
2. Conventional oil sources discovery peaked a long time ago and the production is outstripping the discovery, much like how the consumption outstripped production to cause a $147 / bbl price.
3. Non-conventional oil sources such as Tar sands, Shales, etc., are required to grow at 10% to offset peak oil's effects. Consider this in contrast: the thus-far easy to get cheap oil grew at a rate of 2%. Now we're not only talking about pumping a lot more energy into the system to extract the tough to get oil amidst a looming peak metal issue but also oil that requires a lot more energy upto the refining process. Unfortunately, investments in exploring/extracting non-conventional sources took a major hit after the oil price crash in 2008 since these non-conventional sources are not (yet) economically viable at this price point.
A classic case of "technological progress" postponing the peak can be understood from the Cantarell Oil Field, Mexico.
Reply
Leave a comment