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... )
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