Reply With QuoteWhere there just happens to be a lot of petroleum.Originally Posted by Dayuhan
Conservatives got elected. Whether that is or isn't pretty depends, like many other things, on your perspective.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
And whether you are from Alberta.
Where there just happens to be a lot of petroleum.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
Peak Oil denial
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).
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.
Last edited by Fuchs; 07-27-2012 at 01:33 PM.
Canada
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
Bundeswehr report on PO
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.
I recognize that one.
That's a speculation on security policy consequences of peak oil and a literature review of peak oil literature without original research on "peak oil yes/no and when?" itself.
It's got the quality of a master's thesis and its conclusions are about as sophisticated as what'd say in a five-minute brainstorming about peak oil consequences for Germany.
My country produces a couple ten thousand reports of this quality every year. I don't see why the major media outlets should take notice.
Bundeswehr study
"I recognize that one."
You recognize it, but did you read it?
It seems that your measure of a credible, newsworthy study on PO is two-fold: "peak oil yes/no and when?"
The Bundeswehr team addressed the first question directly referring to it as inevitable/unavoidable.
I see no reason why they or anyone else should attempt to predict when or why the eventual peak/plateau might occur.
Military analysts bring interesting perspectives on PO, and the Bundeswehr study stands out among the publicly-available military analyses of PO.
It was written by a team of objective analysts, not by some book-peddling doomsayer, nor by Exxon or the API.
Furthermore, it was approved by Bundeswehr top brass without its compelling "tipping point" warnings being watered down. This section drew heavily on the Feasta report, which also has received no media attention (but warrants it).
Look, crude oil is widely recognised as being a non-renewable resource and there is substantial consumption which won't stop on its own.
So there has to be some peak production sometime.
The "peak oil" discussion is about something different; it's about whether said peak is either close or even in the past. It's about whether time has already run out for normal adaption to increasing scarcity.
The Bundeswehr study doesn't have the flesh to make a real statement about this important question. Instead, it's citing other sources and muses about possible consequences of a peak (when it happens) for Germany and specifically German security policy.
The real, official experts in Germany concerning the peak oil discussion are in the BGR.
Bundeswehr on PO
Thanks for the BGR study: I thought the link was no good but it finally did download (after about a minute). I will examine it carefully.
I still think that you are overly focused on timing: how close it may be, are we already post-peak, will there be time for an orderly transition (to what?), etc.
I'm sure you are correct: when it comes to energy resources, BGR will be your experts. Here in Canada, our government expertise supposedly resides within Natural Resources Canada. But NRCan has never done a study on PO or energy security, nor does it intend to (though that does not stop them from stating, "There is no imminent peak oil challenge").
But PO is not simply a geological/resource issue; the issue of affordable liquid fuels affects every sector of society: transport & supply chains, mineral extraction, agri-food, emergency service budgets, etc. Ripple effects include employment, tax revenues for governments and social programs, which in turn affect things like mortgage defaults, property values, stability of financial institutions, currency valuation, and globalization itself.
Surely the issue is so complex that it requires a multi-disciplinary approach.
The O&G industry has first-hand expertise, but it also has vested interests. Government departments are often too cozy with industry, as we have seen (and both have an interest in focusing on the positive/optimistic). Financiers and economists may be ignorant of certain geological realities. The geopolitical situation changes daily.
So who are the real experts?
My point is that military analysts have a useful perspective, and within that sector the Bundeswehr study is unique. It was done by a team (unlike the various war college theses, which contain the disclaimer that it's only the view of the officer candidate, etc). It's over 100 pages long (often we're lucky to get 100 words on PO, usually in a text box).
The section on Tipping Point goes well beyond the usual observations on geopolitics, fueling the troops, the potential for resource wars, etc. It points out that some of the largest threats from PO will be internal: unemployment, reduced government revenues, food supply difficulties/unaffordability, social unrest (with insufficient government services to contain/curtail disorder), unstable financial institutions and currencies, etc.
Are you aware of any other study (within BGR or anywhere) which addresses the issue of PO in such a comprehensive manner?
The only other ones that come close are the Feasta study and UKERC's excellent 2009 study, but I don't recall the latter addressing the internal financial & social dimensions the way the Bundeswehr team does.
Not in English.
A bit of a digression, but one with some relevance to energy politicas and environmental politics...
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, 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.
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.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Harper's support
Hi again, Steve: I knew you'd jump in on this one.
You said, "within a certain demographic segment" but I would argue that Harper's unpopularity goes much further: it's not just a segment, but a clear majority.
First, the 'left' is split 3 ways (Liberal, NDP, Bloc Quebecois) whereas the right sensibly amalgamated (Conservative & Reform Party) but collectively had more votes than the Tories.
Second, we often hear of life-long Tories who are dismayed by Harper and his agenda and vow that they will never vote for him again (which remains to be seen).
Non-English PO studies
I presume that by "Not in English" you know of well-conducted analyses of PO in other languages (German?).
If so, please provide the links: I have contacts who are fluent in German, Swedish, Italian, French, etc who have assisted with translation in the past and will help out again if they are asked, esp. if the study is significant.
Their related publications of the last years are here:
http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Ene...doel_node.html
http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Ene...ukte_node.html
BGR studies
Fuchs,
I examined both links but see no reference to peak oil.
Could you please direct me to the pages/sections which deal with PO?
Australian Defence Force Journal
The new issue of ADF Journal contains two articles which touch on peak oil, declining US power, etc:
http://www.adfjournal.adc.edu.au/Use...%20Jul_Aug.pdf
The first ("Dangerous Assumptions," pgs. 11- 22) is by Maj. Cameron Leckie, who has written several insightful papers re. PO and its potential effects on his nation, esp. re future military capabilities.
The second ("Seven Sinister Strategic Trends," pgs. 23- 33) is by Lt. Nick Deshpande of the Canadian Forces. It's an abridged version of his article which appeared last fall in Cdn Military Journal.
Both papers contain extensive bibliographies.
Also, I wrote to BGR in Germany on Aug. 1st and asked what research they had done on peak oil but did not receive a reply.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/17/news....html?iid=LeadNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mexico, one of the largest suppliers of oil to the United States, has a big problem: Its production of crude is falling fast.
In 2008, the country's production peaked at 3.2 million barrels a day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last year, it didn't even produce 3 million a day.
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
The bonanza from North Sea oil has spectacularly declined, almost without the public noticing. In 2011 oil 47.5mt and gas 28.1 kms - approx. halved in ten years. From: https://www.og.decc.gov.uk/pprs/full_production.htm
IIRC the UK is now importing more from Norway and we have restarted large-scale LNG imports.
davidbfpo
http://energypolicyinfo.com/2012/08/...reasing-again/
.Naturally, this demand growth is coming at a time when the market is facing numerous disruptions, both political and physical. Iran’s output, formerly OPEC’s second largest behind Saudi Arabia, has been hamstrung by international sanctions to deter its nuclear program (although it has been relentlessly seeking to dodge them at every viable opportunity) while field depletion is threatening output in the North Sea and Brazil, and production has been sliding in Mexico and Venezuela. The combination of these factors has led to price spikes in Brent Crude, which reached a three month high of $117 earlier this week.
In response to the disruption of Iranian supply, the New York Times reported this morning that the United States is increasing its dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia, the imports of which have increased by over 20 percent this year. The United States and Saudi Arabia have enjoyed a strategic alliance for decades, due to the Kingdom’s ability to compensate for production shortfalls from other OPEC member states. For the past five months, the United States has imported a daily average of 1.45 million barrels of Saudi crude, compared to 1.15 million for the first five months of 2011. However, while this is far from the first time Saudi Arabian spare capacity has proved an invaluable resource, the geopolitics surrounding this reliance are increasingly troubled, and the alliance is a precarious one
Seems that is will all be temporary once the sanctions issue gets straightened out with Iran. Not sure about the North Sea, but if investment is facilitated the Mexican oil fields may still be productive. The core of the issue is the U.S. default to economic sanctions. Besides being a bullying tactic that generally backfires in ways that are not always apparent at first such as, increased anti-Americanism, collateral damage to the economies of our allies and partners, hurts U.S. businesses, increases control of the government we're targeting by further centralizing power (Iraq), etc., it is frankly getting harder to enforce in the era of a globally interdependent economy where both friends and foes will look for ways to bypass these sanctions. We'll be forced to back down or have sanctions in name only.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks