Hmm… Unca Cece admits that the 2006 predictions for peak oil were way off base, due partly to vast improvements in technology in the past six years, but purports to be able to predict the future of fossil fuel production capacity over the next 90?
Other than that, I don’t really take exception to any of the specific statements made in this (tomorrow’s) column, but the only conclusion that I can see that is reasonable to draw is that this stuff is basically impossible to make any realistic prediction about.
Cecil should stick to columns about weird, random things that have been found stuck up people’s assholes or explaining to the Teeming Millions why light beer never seems to get you really, truly drunk, as it looks like he wiffed again when it comes to a question that even the world’s foremost “experts” (whatever that even means when it comes to a subject such as this) can’t find any consensus on.
Seriously, Cecil is (was?) one hell of an informative, concise, and most importantly funny writer when it comes to certain topics, but he is clearly, painfully out of his element on this one.
I mean let’s face it, “Eventually, the world’s gonna run out of oil, maybe tomorrow, maybe 500 years from now.” isn’t exactly Pulitzer Prize material, is it?
I wonder if these prognosticators considered China’s burgeoning middle class who will soon be able to afford automobiles, tractors, generators and Weber grills.
Regarding the global scalding, if there were (7.6e12 barrels of oil)(317 kg CO2/barrel)(12.01/44.01 g C/g CO2)(1 mton/1000 kg)(1 Gton/1e9 mton) = 657 gigatons of CO2 as carbon. Comparing that to the estimated ecosystem inventory of 150,000 gigatons as carbon, I’m not sure the earth will vaporize with an increase of 0.4% absorbed primarily into the ocean.
I’m guessing here, but I think Cecil was exaggerating slightly for humorous effect. He’s been known to do that. Just a little. The previous sentence is an example of the opposite: understatement for humouous effect.
As a rule of thumb, if a toss-off line is not specifically about the central issue (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions are peripheral to discussions of Peak <fossil fuel>), you can discount it as part of the ignorance-fighting you might otherwise expect. It’s a joke. Laugh.
I remember this column the first time around, and have what is probably a naive question—the various acalculations seem to all relate to when we would “run out of” oil, which I suppose is the question we should all care about. But why then is the question phrased in term sof when PRODUCTION will peak and then start to fall? Isn’t “production” a function of how much is needed and a variety of other things such as who is doing the producing, how, etc.? Or are we (they?) just pumping that stuff out as fast as possible. Or, as we start to get low, does production fall because it doesn’t come shooting out as fast, like when Bugs Bunny or Daffy or Jed hit a gusher? Just seems that “production” would ebb and flow, just like production of everything else probably does…
Production is a function of how much you can physically produce AND bring to market. Most of the large oil producing nations have some slack in their production…i.e., if needed, they can ramp up production to meet an increase in demand (or ramp it down when demand is down to keep prices relatively stable). If they don’t have any slack, then in theory they could build more production…more wells, more logistics and transport hubs and facilities, etc. However, at a certain point, wells decline in production…there just isn’t an endless supply of oil. At that point, no matter how many wells you drill or pipelines you put in, you just can’t squeeze any more oil out of them. So, production drops off. Eventually, in theory anyway, that’s what will happen with world wide oil production…the demand will exceed any ability to to supply, thus you will have reached the peak and started the decline (more demand leading to even less production at, according to the Peak Oil™ folks an ever increasing decline and eventually we’ll go back to hunting and gathering as the gods intended).
What Cecil seems to be saying though is that, due to the ability to get at reserves that we weren’t able to get at before, as well as new sources (such as tar sands and shale oils), coupled with the fact that you can use other fossil fuels to produce the same petroleum products we use today, it pushes back the graph of when production is trumped by demand, even with all the new mouths to feed in the emerging industrial nations such as China, India and the like (though in the heavily industrialized world, demand is pretty flat…in the US and Europe and countries like that, for instance).
Of course, as he also mentions, this does nothing for the issue of global climate change due to the use of these fuels…but, at least it means that we are unlikely to need those Gurkhas knives and leathers anytime soon (well, assuming we get past the Apocalypse next month when Jesus unleashes his Mayan minions on an unsuspecting world).
“now for the part nobody anticipated in 2006…”. Yeah, right. Nobody except all of the people who invested all of their time, ingenuity and enormous amounts of money making the changes happen. Why can’t Cecil just say that he was wrong and leave it at that?
Cecil is never “wrong,” but he’s not omniscient beyond the range of what’s known to science. He can’t be blamed for being unable to read the future. And, of course, the word “nobody” is shorthand for “93.4% of the scientific community” but since the column is limited in number of words, he often uses such shorthand.
Can you you cite your source for that reference to 93.4% of the scientific community (whatever that is) in 2006 not foreseeing the current technology for petrochemical production? I’m not a petrochemical engineer but I’m reasonably certain that people were committing significant resources to developing and implementing the technology at that time. And if not, it’s even more reason to ignore Cecil’s prognostications about the state of play in 2100 since that would mean thst a fundamental, game changing technology has gone from nonexistent to significant commercial utilization in just a few years. Again, Cecil should just admit he’s wrong and leave it at that.
I’m guessing Hussman32 was doing the same thing. “I’m not sure the earth will vaporize” in response to Cecil’s comment about scalding hot indicates to me that (s)he’s replying in the same kind of tone, while making a point at the same time.
Well, the same thing is true of all sorts of renewable and alternative energy technologies, and yet those haven’t taken off in a huge way like unconventional oil and gas. I’ll agree that in hindsight it was a good bet, but I don’t think it was entirely a sure thing back in '06.
Yes, joking with a point. A “serious” article in the Rolling Stone pointed out an estimate of carbon similar to this article and suggested we were all about to die. Calmer heads prevail in Straight Dope Land, but I thought it best to complete the mass balance.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think coal gasoline is a particularly viable alternative. Yes, it can be done. It has been done on an industrial scale- a certain central European country relied heavily on it to power their tanks in the middle of the last century. But they made it work because they had negligible labor costs via the extensive application of slavery.
In normal economic conditions it is my understanding that coal gasoline would be so expensive that it would motivate even George W Bush to promote electric cars.
Anyway, otherwise I agree things seem to have changed. Just the other day there was a story predicting the US becoming the world’s largest oil producer by 2020. Article here. Now that’s a new one! However, implicit in the article is the notion that Saudi Arabia’s production will drop by then to help us overtake them, which is not good news for the peak oil situation.
There’s a big difference between something that’s a sure thing and something that nobody foresaw. Even at this point, the long term viability of hydraulic fracturing technology isn’t assured. It could very well be eclipsed by a some other method that’s more efficient. That’s the nature of technology and commercial competition. By the way, according to Wikipedia, the current version of hydraulic fracturing was developed by Mitchell Energy in 1997.
Peak conventional oil already happened. Now we are dealing with a new energy source: fracking. It is not clear that fracking is viable long term. (More so in the USA, with giant land to destroy, than in crowded Europe!) Synthetic fuel, a la Standard oil-Nazi method, did not prove viable, as Try2be mentioned, in spite of Carter’s feeble attempt. Nor are Canadian Tar Sands medium term viable, because of oversized ecological impacts.