On the other hand, the same projections are made about every other resource and the same limitations apply. Why people don’t freak out about “peak copper” or “peak platinum”, I have no idea.
Hell, there was a time in human history where all our mineral needs could be generated from what was just lying around. Then “all the easy sources” ran out, so we invented this thing called “mining.”
The Peak Oil (note the caps) conspiracy theorizing takes a fundamental law that applies to all natural resources and acts like it Something Different that we (humanity) hasn’t faced every day, and implies that liquid oil is the only source of energy that matters and (here’s the kicker) that it is completely irreplaceable with no alternatives available.
In the real world, what we’re finding is that the shale reserves are there if we need them, the cost of solar is now competitive with oil (a claim that could not be made when this thread was started, btw), and people are acting in ways that have imply massive reductions in our use of oil are oncoming. Even cars that drive themselves will increase fuel efficiency by, I would bet, 10%.
So… yeah, this transition to a lower oil-use society will happen, but I’m not worried about some idiotic “collapse” scenario. Substitution effects and better technology will ease the transition as well as the simple fact that we’ve been discussing and preparing for this eventuality for decades. It’s not like people just say “oh, look oncoming death. Let’s just sit here.” which is what it would take for the Societal Collapse scenarios to come true. And, as the solar price chart linked earlier shows, like the number of Priuses on the road indicates, and the development of shale and other alternatives show, we haven’t been sitting around doing nothing.
An economy like that of the U.S. needs a return of more than 40:1, higher than what most hydrocarbons can provide.
This also does not include a growing global middle class which is negating demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan, as seen in the first chart presented here:
Crude oil production peaked in 2005 as per EIA data and confirmed by the IEA in 2010. Demand is increasing and is being met by shale oil.
In addition, crude oil production is expected to drop, pulling down gains from unconventional production. The latter is also expected to last for only a few more years. Finally, demand may rise significantly due to a growing global middle class.
Solar is competitive with oil because the energy returns for oil have dropped. The problem is that we need high energy returns, something that neither can provide.
I think we have been doing that for decades through the use of nuclear power, among others.
The problem is that we need high energy returns, something which steam cannot provide, not to mention petrochemicals needed for thousands of consumer goods.
Given that, we will ultimately be forced to lower resource consumption, and probably to a level similar to that of the Victorians.
The catch is that unlike their world, ours has over seven billion people, a degraded ecosystem, lots of armaments, and the threat of global warming.
First, fossil fuels are a lot more central to the economy than copper or platinum are. It’s a major commodity in energy production, transportation, agriculture, and plastics. A dip in fossil fuels will have consequences across the entire economy.
Second, there’s evidence it’s an imminent problem. While some people argue that we have enough oil and natural gas for decades more production at our current rate, their claims are pretty implausible. The better evidence is that production of oil and natural gas are peaking this decade (and may have already done so).
Finally, fossil fuels aren’t like copper or platinum. Copper and platinum are basic elements; you might reshape them but they retain their basic character and can potentially be used forever. Petrochemicals are complex molecules and they are changed by the uses we put them through. As M. King Hubbert put it, “You can only use oil once.”
Nobody, or at least nobody with any sense, was saying that we’d run out of oil. Some people were saying that we’d reach peak oil by now. And in fact, it’s quite possible that we have. Peaks of functions are very hard to identify, when you’re sitting right on top of them.
There will always be hundreds of years’ worth of oil and gas underground. The problem is that most of it cannot be accessed because the energy needed to get it is almost as high as the energy that can be derived from what is extracted. Thus, what is eventually extracted is only a fraction of what is estimated to be available.
Next, the global economy requires high energy returns, and an growing global middle class requires even higher energy returns and more resources. That’s because oil and many other resources (not just minerals but even fresh water) and a lot of energy are needed to manufacture and transport goods that are much more complex, such as electronic gadgets and hybrid cars. Even various components of renewable energy needed to provide power to these goods plus manufacturing and even food production requires oil in the form of energy and petrochemicals. (Thousands of products and components are made using petrochemicals and are very difficult to replace.)
Third, a growing global middle class is necessary in a global capitalist economy because everyone–government that relies on more tax revenues, businesses that want more profits and hence sales, financial institutions that need better returns on their investments each time, and citizens who want promotions, pay raises, better returns on their investment, and a continuation of middle class conveniences–has to sell to an expanding market.
Thus, in order for the global economy to remain, more oil and other resources need to be consumed to sustain continuous economic growth. According to the IEA, for this to happen, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.
That cannot take place if oil and other resources cannot be increased readily, and that’s what we are seeing right now. Crude oil production peaked in 2005, and we are now resorting to shale oil to meet growing demand. Unfortunately, shale oil has low energy returns and steep decline curves, and is thus expected to last for only a few years. Also, it is expected to meet both a growing demand and an eventual decline in crude oil production. For that to happen, we will need more than one Saudi Arabia every seven years.
This one turned out to be so flabbergastingly wrong, I can only assume Mr. Simmons has another career by now.
Sigh… Since he made this statement, deep water oil production has tripled from 1.5 million barrels/day to 4.5 million. It has also passed that 5 billion mark quite a while ago, and is blowing past it at the rate of 1.6 billion barrels every year.
OK. Well, we see how their track record at this conference has been so far…
Well, this was right. Hydrogen fuel cells are not a significant market share for vehicles. I do note that they didn’t mention hybrids or electric vehicles…
Irrelevant.
Well, the “financial and economic disaster” didn’t exactly happen.
And this is true, but the guy was extrapolating from a 20 year trend line.
OK, here are some:
These experts were wrong in nearly all their predictions.
Worse, they completely missed the shale revolution and the resurgance of American gas and oil production.
They also missed the collapse in solar and wind production prices
They ignored and/or dismissed standard substitutions
They (or the article) focused on the most pie-in-the-sky auto technology (hydrogen cells), claimed it was worthless, and ignored other options.
They missed the massive change that America is undergoing regarding driving. But then again, so did the Americans in the Department of Transportation, so you can’t blame them.
The first paragraph isn’t true as even some thought could attest. Simple improvements in efficiency can wring out “1 saudi arabia every 7 years.” Hell, for a historical example look at the US consumption of oil from 1978 to 1998. In 1978, oil consumption hit a level it would not reach again for another 20 years… however, in that time, while our yearly use of oil remained lower than the amount consumed in 1978, the economy more than doubled in size. Why is this no longer possible?
The second is flat out wrong. Crude oil production was higher in 2012 than ever, regardless of shale production.
“They missed the massive change that America is undergoing regarding driving. But then again, so did the Americans in the Department of Transportation, so you can’t blame them.”
(Actually, I just reviewed the numbers. The US still uses less oil per day than we did in 1978, even though our population has grown by 40% and the economy, in real terms, has tripled in size.)
The difference in miles over what we would have driven (if historical growth figures were extrapolated to today) and what was driven is almost 1 trillion miles. In other words, we drove 1 trillion miles less over the past 7 years than people were expecting when the OP was written. Assuming 15 miles per gallon, this amounts to over 60 billion barrels of oil that was not consumed and still remain in the ground. Not a single person at that conference thought this could happen… well, not without major societal disruption. :rolleyes:
You know, I love that this thread has been bumped. It’s been fascinating reading.
Following are Peak Oil links, listed by adamant. These sites were very active in 2003, and I bet they were wild after Katrina.
But now? Let’s see how they’re doing in 2014…
Very ranty, very “there’s no hope”. Here’s a sample quote:
*"The USA, Saudi Arabia and Russia are competing to see which country can “produce” the most oil. That translates into racing to see which country will reach the bottom of the barrel first. In their frantic race to the bottom, these countries are creating havoc on the ground – destroying aquifers, watersheds, productive land, forests – and on the high seas – even to the point of attempting to drill in the Arctic Ocean where extreme conditions will thwart human arrogance.
Reports of production increases can be seen as just more warnings that the race to the finish is accelerating. Sadly those fossil fuelish players have little to show for a Plan B.
Reports of profits can be seen as thieves bragging about who got away with the biggest heist. Oil only costs what it takes to steal it from our children’s children’s children. The notion that “they will come up with something to replace oil” is thoughtless and irresponsible. Tell those guys to be careful: they might stub their toes trying to kick the can down the road that far. The physical cliff may be closer than they think."*
Good stuff, especially his citation of a “million” deaths per year from auto accidents (real figure, ~45,000.)
The blog had 3 updates for 2013, none so far for 2014, and 9 in 2012. I wouldn’t call the site dead, but it’s on life support.
This is hilarious. Matthew Simmons, the guy I said in an earlier post should get another job because of his blown natural gas call in 2003, and a favorite source and cite of many posters here in this very thread back in 2003, has, well…
He’s changed his mind.
Well, not really. Mr. Simmons passed away in 2010, but the company he founded has veered sharply away from the Peak Oil based projections and is now printing the following quotes in their annual Energy Conference Recap (2012 cited)
*“I was a peak oiler until about five years ago,” said Irene Rummelhof of Statoil ASA. “What is happening now is amazing.”
One of the discussions was entitled: “Deepwater offshore drilling should be a great business, with strong long-term growth prospects and significant barriers to entry. But will pricing ever improve?”*
(Remember the earlier cite that stated that deepwater drilling was a dead-end? )
This one has pretty much died, averaging 24 posts a month this year, down from 400-600 posts/month in its heyday.
More incorrect Simmons. I think this site stopped being updated sometime between 2004 and 2007.
I was reading one of their excursions into the Eagle Ford shale area (near where I live) and I had to laugh when I read the following… I could just hear the disappointment in the words and the final defiant “I have to say something negative” words:
“We left the Eagle Ford with mixed feelings. I had expected that all the thousands of wells would have affected the landscape more than they did. Thousands of wind turbines would be far more visible. Having said that, I don’t want to say that a thousand oil pumps is preferable to a thousand wind turbines. However, being on the ground to study and experience the fracking activity is important when one wants to participate in the debate over our future energy supply.”
“Dammit! The environmental destruction is not as bad as I wanted it, er, feared it would be!”
Still active, I think, though the site has a number of broken links in its “link” page. There is a “President’s Message” section that hasn’t been updated since 2007, but some articles have been uploaded as recently as 2012.
“The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) is no longer an active organisation. This site remains as an archive.”
Saudi Arabia has ~270 billion barrels of reserves. At the top end of the estimates, the Bakken amounts to about a Saudi Arabia. So there’s (almost) one.
For my second point, crude oil production went down. See the second chart using data from the EIA in this page for details:
Crude oil production has been in a 73.4 Mb/d plateau since 2005. This proves Hubbert’s claim of a peak in crude oil production after 1995 + 10 years, made in 1976:
This also confirms the IEA acknowledgement that crude oil production peaked in 2005-2006:
The article refers to the same IEA Outlook 2010 report shared above.
