Energy Security

[Ulenspiegel]

This week another article appeared in the European Energy Review taking nealry the same line as Robin Mills piece two weeks ago.

Oil does of course not run out within a few years, CHEAP oil does!
Here the author uses a strawman, public deception is only a minor problem when even "experts" ignore some fundamentals.

All the new projects or revitalized old ones work, because the price of crude is high, therefore, they will not decrease the price but in best case slow down its increase.

The only positive developement is the higher production of natural gas in the US and Canada and the savings in the last two years.

Whether the transition from oil to methane is fast enough is for me interesting questions. We are talking about rates: rate of transition vs. increase of crude price

BTW: Some really good contributions to the decline of easily accessible crude is are found on "The Oil Drum": http://www.theoildrum.com/

Here I recommend the latest article on Norway's production, see figur 5 to get a feeling for the issue:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9166#more

[Ulenspiegel]

Addendum: A few minutes ago a IMF study on this topic was posted on TOD:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9182#more

[davidbfpo]

Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time.

So says a leading UK ecology advocate, George Monbiot.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...il-we-we-wrong

The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.

Rick,

I don't follow Canadian politics, what is going on that is not pretty?

[Dayuhan]

I don't follow Canadian politics, what is going on that is not pretty?

Conservatives got elected. Whether that is or isn't pretty depends, like many other things, on your perspective.

[ganulv]

Conservatives got elected. Whether that is or isn't pretty depends, like many other things, on your perspective.

Where there just happens to be a lot of petroleum.

[Rick M]

Like the Citigroup report which came out in February, Maugeri's report is very optimistic. Both reports express a complacency re. future oil supply which is unjustified. Both celebrate the "end of peak oil" (Maugeri says, "no 'peak-oil' in sight"), primarily because of the recent developments re shale/tight oil in the Bakken.

George Monbiot's article appeared on July 2nd, one week after the release of Maugeri's 86-page report. Given the complexity of the issue (ie. the future of global oil supply) and the uncertainties involved, Monbiot would have done well to take his time, consider the validity of some of Maugeri's assertions, and seek out the observations of knowledgeable, experienced analysts before quickly declaring, "We were wrong on peak oil."

Several of these analysts came forward this month to point out where Maugeri is in error.
Dave Summers (aka "Heading Out") posted his rebuttal the same day as Monbiot's article appeared:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292

Steve Sorrell at UKERC is certainly one person Monbiot should have consulted before jumping to his conclusion. Sorrell's updated rebuttal was posted at The Oil Drum on July 11:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292

The responses to both TOD articles are worth examining.

Olivier Rech is also a knowledgeable analyst. The English translation of his observations appeared on July 9:
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/...roleum-expert/

In summary, these are 'tough times' for peak oil advocates: optimistic reports (despite the 'selectivity' of their info) are quickly heralded by mainstream media. Meanwhile, well-reasoned, detailed studies like the German military report on PO (2010, 99 pgs) received no media analysis at all.

Personally, I see little to mitigate my concerns.
Production of conventional oil remains flat, global demand continues to rise, we are increasingly forced toward liquid fuel sources which are more energy intensive/lower EROEI, and alternative energy sources are struggling on multiple fronts.
Furthermore, the focus of PO analysts has shifted during the past few years.
At the risk of over-simplifying/generalizing, I would characterize this shift as moving beyond a relatively narrow focus on oil supply (reserves & reserve reporting, flow rates, EROEI, geopolitics, etc) and more toward economics (the importance of affordable oil to our economy & our food supply chain, the potential reversal of globalization, unsupportable transfer payments, risks to currencies and financial institutions & markets, etc).

Given the inevitability of PO and the scale of the potential dilemma, unfounded encouragements to complacency are not helpful (and more likely a tragic error, as Rech argues).

[Fuchs]

the German military report on PO (2010, 99 pgs)

Which one?

Our military has no oil production experts. We've got a civilian agency for minerals stuff that bristles with experts instead.

Its latest report.

In accordance with BGR’s updated projection, oil
production could be increased until around 2036. The
growing proportion of NGL and oil from oil sands
and extra heavy oil have no signifi cant influence on
the projected time of peak oil production but does
boost the maximum production level. According to
the projection, this maximum will be around 4.6
billion t annual production. Crude oil will therefore
be the first fuel which will no longer be able to
satisfy rising demand.

[Rick M]

What's not pretty?

Yes, Conservatives got elected (in 2006, re-elected with a minority in 08). What is significant is that they were re-elected in 2011 with a majority, which has given PM Harper much greater scope to exercise his agenda.

Harper is widely viewed as controlling, and the perception is that he is rather ruthless in pursuing his vision of a pro-corporate, pro-free trade, lean government, reduced public services, etc.

And yes, we have lots of bitumen (we peaked in conventional oil in 1973) and tight gas (we are post-peak in conventional gas as well).

Harper is all in favour of opening up our west coast to export large volumes of LNG and raw bitumen. The latter idea has sparked disagreement this week between the premiers of Alberta and BC.

But I think what Monbiot is referring to is more the issue of Canada being a pariah at the CC conferences, Harper cutbacks re gov't scientists, our general foot-dragging on CC, and our support for USA doing the same

[Rick M]

Hi, Fuchs

The Bundeswehr report was addressed on pg. 13 up-thread.
The link to the English translation was posted on p. 15 (#283 up-thread).

I have a few contacts in Germany, all of whom reported that this study received virtually no media attention: Der Spiegel was first to publicize, but only in its on-line version. If you have other info, please let me know.

One of these German contacts met several of the Bundeswehr analysts one evening and was very impressed with both their knowledge and their sincerity.
Their study is thoughtful, realistic and worthy of much greater attention than it has received, IMHO.

[Dayuhan]

A bit of a digression, but one with some relevance to energy politicas and environmental politics...

Harper is widely viewed as controlling, and the perception is that he is rather ruthless in pursuing his vision of a pro-corporate, pro-free trade, lean government, reduced public services, etc.

I'm familiar with that perspective... most of my Canadian friends are either academics or kayakers, and they uniformly view Harper as being somewhere between Darth Vader and Lord Voldemort.

But on the other hand...

Yes, Conservatives got elected (in 2006, re-elected with a minority in 08). What is significant is that they were re-elected in 2011 with a majority, which has given PM Harper much greater scope to exercise his agenda.

Yes, on the other hand he gets elected. So while he is "widely" viewed in a very negative way within a certain demographic segment, his message apparently has some resonance and some traction in other segments.

But I think what Monbiot is referring to is more the issue of Canada being a pariah at the CC conferences, Harper cutbacks re gov't scientists, our general foot-dragging on CC, and our support for USA doing the same

Yes, in some quarters that which is not PC is not pretty. Again, this view is not universal.

The point on a political level is that leaders are not accountable to the politically correct climate change squad or to any other issue-based group, and while certain political perspectives may seem anathema within those groups, people in those groups have to recognize that there's a wide wide audience out there that may not share their perspective.