Peak Oil News >> Consumption; Demand; Prices >> The Myth of Peak Oil

Forums

Submit News

View posts since last visit

Menu

News

	Search
	Topics
	Stories Archive
	Submit News

Discussions

	Code of Conduct
	Forums
	Forums Search
	Last 24 Hours
	PO 24hrs
	Peak Blog

Resources

	About Us
	Downloads
	Web Links
	PeakWiki
	PeakPortal
	Focus Search
	Peak TV
	Peak Oil Boston

Members

	Your Account
	Members List
	Ignore List
	JOIN!
	Private Messages

Light Sweet Crude Oil

google

PeakSpeak

Download TeamSpeak
What is PeakSpeak?
Peak Oil on IRC

Member Quotes

Meanwhile, keep watching for shortage reports, because we should start seeing some sneak in this week, if our doom-o-meter is calibrated correctly.

pup55

Suggest Quote

Photo Album
Submit Photo

Peakoil.com is You!

member photos

ICM

Cisco & Net App Training

The Myth of Peak Oil

Guest writes: First, whatever ends up replacing petroleum will come in its own good time, later than we'd like but probably sooner than we expect. It will come because it stores energy and power better than gasoline does and more cheaply to boot. It will come with some tremendous benefits and some unfortunate drawbacks. Consider as you lament the evils of crude oil: the fairly accidental discovery of kerosene and expansion of the refining process in the second half of the 19th century saved whales from an early mass extinction while at same time making nighttime light and winter heat affordable to even the most impoverished parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Gasoline itself was originally a waste product, largely unused until the invention of the internal combustion engine, and automobiles made for cleaner streets (no more manure) and safer farm equipment, given that farmers no longer had to wrestle with motors that had minds of their own. Kerosene itself languished as an unloved byproduct of refining for several decades until the invention of the jet engine.

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Posted on Friday, April 29 @ 15:29:53 PDT by Carrie

Most read story about Consumption; Demand; Prices:
Forget About Cheap Oil

Article Rating

Average Score: 1.28
Votes: 7

Options

Printer Friendly

Send to a Friend

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 5 comments | Search Discussion

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: The Myth of Peak Oil (Score: 1)
by dub_scratch on Friday, April 29 @ 15:51:35 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Have FAITH and it will "come in its own good time."
BELIEVE and it will "power better than gasoline."
PRAY to the Invisible Hand and she shall grant thy fuel that is "more cheaply to boot."
If we WISH long and hard, we shall get this new miracle "probably sooner than we expect."

These, my fellow petrol tribesmen, is the prophecy from our high priest Charles Featherstone.

Re: The Myth of Peak Oil (Score: 1)
by FoxV on Friday, April 29 @ 18:54:05 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Ahmen

Re: The Myth of Peak Oil (Score: 1)
by Keith_McClary on Friday, April 29 @ 23:41:44 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

"Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005"

This was on PO months ago.

Re: The Myth of Peak Oil (Score: 1)
by bobcousins on Saturday, April 30 @ 05:09:07 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

He says "I don't necessarily trust technology, but I do trust human ingenuity. Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil, and that's in and of itself is motivation enough to make sure that future energy is widely available at prices people can afford."

According to our recent poll people are on average 61% stupid and apathetic, and only 1% smart and motivated. So its all down to those 1%.

Actually, reading that sort of article makes me want to shake the writer firmly by the neck and shout "you are stupid!". Long on details which at the end he says are irrelevant anyway. He points out that the use of gasoline is largely an accident of history - we didn't "invent" fossil oil based on a need, we just found it. He discounts government programs, which could theoretically harness ingenuity to come up with a solution. So he ends up putting his trust in something without any precedent - a privately funded genius to come up with a solution.

He could have answered the question about peak oil in one sentence : "I have no idea".

Re: The Myth of Peak Oil (Score: 1)
by killJOY on Saturday, April 30 @ 05:36:29 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)

Here's my response to Mr Featherstone:

What a fabulous article that is! (I'm speaking of "The Myth of Peak Oil"). It's probably the most informative and best written piece I've seen giving an overview of the world oil market. I'm thinking of assigning this article to my students for part of their research, but as they are freshmen, I'm not sure they're ready for all the economics.

Here's some thoughts, it you don't mind:

You say: I'm not a geologist or a geophysicist, so I do not know whether crude oil and natural gas are made from biomass – the result of time, heat and pressure acting upon tons and tons of dead things, mostly algae and phytoplankton – or whether the complex hydrocarbons we extract from the earth are "inorganic...

This is very easy to find out about. I was once a geology major and am familiar with the overwhelming evidence in support of the orthodox theory of oil formation. Here is a very succinct compilation of arguments for biotic oil:

http://www.peakoil.com/contentid-25.html

The problem with the article I have is that, while you call it "The Myth of Peak Oil," just about everything you say the peak oil people also agree with! In fact, I hazard to say that you have not refuted peak oil at all, you have, in fact, compiled a great argument on behalf of it.

I simply cannot find much to disagree with in your article. I believe, though, that you have mischaracterized peak oil theory. For example, you say: "In millennialist language, these people say that the human race is on the verge of a massive turning point because oil is nearly depleted" and you comment "There's a lot of sour crude in the world, more than anyone can use. More than anyone wants right now.

Hardly empty."
What you have here is a "straw man" argument, for peak oil theorists are saying the same thing. They are not saying the world is almost out of oil. They are saying that we are about halfway through CONVENTIONAL oil. Peaking is not "myth" but an observable phenomenon: it happened--very dramatically--to the US in 1971. In fact, all of North America's conventional oil fields have peaked (PEMEX recently announced that the last huge field, Canterell, will be going into decline.)

Yes, heavy crude will be exploited, according to the peak oil theorists.
Yes, to bitumen, oil sands, biodiesel, enhanced oil recovery, etc.
But none of this will ever be as cheaply extracted and processed as conventional oil, nor will it be enough to mitigate a decline in liquid fuels supply. (Notice I say "decline," not "exhaustion.") Here is a 91-page document--the Hirsch report--that thoroughly examines how the decline of conventional oil could be mitigated--if we had twenty years to wait before the peak of conventional oil:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497&Itemid=2

Lastly, I am very worried about the conclusion of your piece. I'm referring to the paragraph which begins this way:

First, whatever ends up replacing petroleum will come in its own good time, later than we'd like but probably sooner than we expect. It will come because it stores energy and power better than gasoline does and more cheaply to boot.

Throughout your piece, you have depicted world oil markets very concretely, but here your language fails you. "It" is simply not enough. Here, you rely on faith, not logic, to make your case for you. You are begging the question: you assume "It" is real and only has to be found.

Finally, this statement sounds as if it comes directly from the peak oil geologists:

Civilization as we know it will grind to a halt without the energy we derive today from crude oil.

You acknowledge in the same language as peak oil advocates the importance of petroleum energy to society. Your only difference is the following:

I don't necessarily trust technology, bu

Read the rest of this comment...