I remember when I first discovered this 'internet-blogging-thingie' I began by just visiting other sites and joining in the commentary. I don't know why but, despite my placid personality, most times it would end in an 'e-fight'. One of the topics almost guaranteed to kick off trouble was when some 'Greenie' would come on, tolling his bell, so to speak, on the subject of 'Peak Oil', it's imminent arrival and our certain decline into mass starvation and destitution. Their cures for this supposed ill varied from 'Herodical' (kill all the children - now!) to dippy-daft (we must all revert to living in rural mud-huts). My mild suggestion that whilst the notion of 'Peak Oil' might be considered as an abstract possibility it was not worth wasting time (and energy - heh-heh!) worrying about it because it was never going to be a problem. Cue hissy-fits, rage, insults and then, usually, a ban!
Courtesy of IHTM, I have been reading a piece by Andrew Orlowski at The A Register. (The name Orlowski rang a bell and courtesy of my superb search-thingie I discovered that I had referred to him back in January 2010 when he succeeded in giving my mate 'Rupe' a slap for some unscientific nonsense printed in The Times.) Anyway, this time Orlowski is drawing our attention to a paper produced by Citigroup commodity analysts (PDF version here) which is entitled:
Resurging North American Oil Production and the Death of the Peak Oil Hypothesis
The United States’ Long March Toward Energy Independence [*]
According to Orlowski, the report states that new "unconventional" oil and gas is now available as it is extracted from shale via such means as 'fracking'. In addition, progress has been made in the production of synthetic oils and, according to Orlowski:
in a decade the low-carbon synthetic replacements for oil will be in production, too, assuming oil remains at $40-$50 a barrel.
So now the 'Greenies' are faced with an all too real 'end-of-the-world' scenario as their own deeply cherished beliefs literally go up in smoke. What will they think of next to scare the children? My best guess is Global Freezing. Stick around, it will not be long in coming!
[*] Mind you, the thought that the USA might be self-sufficient in oil energy in the near future leaves me worrying about who will undertake to keep supplies flowing from the middle-east?
This is excellent news. Ironically, "peak oil" fanatics often dismissed the concerns of the Global Warmers, on the grounds that we would have run out of oil and de-industrialised long before the temperatures get really torrid!
Please make sure you spread this news to the petrol companies, though, DD. 135.9 per litre is the cheapest around here. I think they ought to ration it anyway, favouring mature sensible essential car users such as myself.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 13:13
I think that you, and a million Greenies, have got the wrong end of the stick. The "peak oil" hypothesis was about conventional oil. To extrapolate from the peaking of production rates of conventional oil to alleging that that must mean that we would imminently run out of oil products was, and is, silly. At the very least there would be coal and tar sands and so forth. though using them would push up the price of transport fuels and lube oils. Now it turns out that there's fracked gas too. Hurray. But again note that you have a lot of money to spend before that yields good transport fuels or lube oils.
Two other points: (i) "assuming oil remains at $40-$50 a barrel": temporarily, at least, a wild shot.
(ii) "... the USA might be self-sufficient in oil energy in the near future leaves me worrying about who will undertake to keep supplies flowing from the middle-east" : Saudi Arabia and Iran, I should think.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 15:09
What will they think of next to scare the children?
Sustainability
Posted by: TDK | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 16:26
'W', I shall sing it from the roof tops!
'DM', don't link me with 'Greenies'! I never supposed that conventional oil would "peak" and then disappear. My point to the 'Greenies' back then was that if it began (for whatever reason - war - government interference - even scarcity) the price would go up and technology and capitalism would combine to find either new sources or new methods or new synthetic products which, I am delighted to say, is precisely what has happened. Thus, I can say proudly that in 72 years I was right - for once! Incidentally, I thought oil was just over a $100 a barrel at the moment.
Hush, TDK, using that sort of language will not only scare teh children but also the Greenies!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 17:29
"I never supposed that conventional oil would "peak" and then disappear." It isn't outrageous: the chap who started the hare made a very good prediction of future US production rates. The area with the biggest fields - Saudi/Gulf, hasn't had a big find in ages. If (I say if) all big, new finds of conventional oil are offshore, that pushes the price up.
"I thought oil was just over a $100 a barrel at the moment." That was my point.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 18:16
Oz: I see that the Welsh Wizard dispatched the Rudd Rotter rather easily.
Posted by: dearieme | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 23:20
DM: It was a lay-down misere.
But the reasons behind the Machiavellian shenanigans remain a mystery.
It will come out .... not too many secrets any more.
Posted by: Andra | Monday, 27 February 2012 at 23:36
The reports of peak oil's demise are exaggerated. The peak of global oil production happened in 2005. I wouldn't get too optimistic about shale oil fracking and tar sands if I were you.
Posted by: Ian Cooper | Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 18:56
Ian, welcome to D&N. I couldn't change the oil in my car which gives you some idea of my expertise but the paper written by the swots at Citigroup (link up above in the post) indicates that they believe peak oil is dead and buried deeper than the average oil well.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 20:27