Peak oil denial

Just as climate change attracts furious denials, so does peak oil - as the comments on my recent, evidently somewhat contentious, post indicate. "Running out? We're swimming in the stuff!" the deniers say cheerfully.

Their most common argument is this: that higher oil prices will make it more affordable to drill less accessible deposits, so there’s no problem after all. But energy isn’t like other commodities. At some stage it will take more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to drill for a barrel of oil, so the job won’t be worth doing however high the oil price - not in my back garden or underneath the ocean or in Canada's tar sands. (See this explanation of Energy Returned on Energy Invested.)

Another argument is to say that people have wrongly predicted a peak in the past. But quite obviously, since oil supplies are finite, there will be a peak eventually. Just because previous predictions were premature does not mean the latest ones are too.

Then there's the suggestion that we have vast proven reserves to fall back on. In 2004, BP’s Lord Browne proclaimed, “We have to demonstrate that there has been no shortage of oil, and that there is no shortage of oil, and that there never need be a shortage… there is no reason why there should be any shortfall in the foreseeable future.”

But it rather depends how far ahead you are foreseeing.

The former oil industry geologist Jeremy Leggett has shown in his book, Half Gone, that the annual BP Statistical Review of World Energy relies substantially on third-party material; and states, in small print, that the figures shown do not necessarily meet US Securities and Exchange Commission definitions and guidelines for determining proved reserves. “They don’t even believe the figures they are publishing!” writes Leggett. “And this is an energy bible used by researchers the world over."

As for Opec countries, Leggett points out that the size of their stated reserves has remained the same each year for a decade - indicating that the amount they have discovered each year has precisely matched the amount they produced over that period. You don’t need a PhD in maths to think this extraordinarily implausible.

The known facts are these: the amount of oil discovered each year has been shrinking for four decades. The last time we discovered more oil than we consumed was 25 years ago; today, for every barrel we discover annually, we consume three. Production is already in terminal decline in 60 of the world’s 98 oil-producing countries, maybe more.

The world’s two largest oilfields, which once contained more than 80bn barrels each, were discovered in 1938 and 1948. Since then, discoveries have been tiny by comparison, and rare. In 2000 there were 16 discoveries of 500m barrels or bigger. In 2001 there were nine. In 2002 there were just two and in 2003 there were none.

Whatever the oil companies say about plentiful reserves, it’s notable that they’re investing little in new tankers or other infrastructure. When former Shell executives, and American energy secretaries start addressing the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, that itself is a rather doomy signal.

When I first heard of peak oil, more than two years ago, I wondered why the government was doing nothing to raise the issue. In the new film A Crude Awakening, Dr Colin Campbell offers an answer: “There is little hope of politicians taking the lead. It’s much easier for them to react to crisis when it happens.”

Although government, and the national political leaders, have ignored the coming problem, backbench MPs and peers have started working together to promote discussion.

John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP for Birmingham Yardley and a physicist by training, chairs the all party parliamentary committee on peak oil and gas. In July last year, Hemming called on the government to review its policies in the light of The International Energy Agency shifting its prediction as to when oil production will peak – from 2030 to just five years from now.

On behalf of the government, the then-chief scientist Sir David King responded. “I am personally not convinced that focusing on the “peak oil” concept is the most helpful approach. The challenge I believe lies in framing policies and in advancing the technologies that will enable the fossil fuel resources to be utilised effectively, economically and sustainably.”

But how can fossil fuels, by definition a finite resource, be used “sustainably”. You either use them, or you don’t.

“I thanked him for his written response,” Hemming tells me. “It was a load of bollocks but I thanked him."

I recently decided to phone the Bank of England, the Treasury, various government departments, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Insurers and oil companies to ask if they had any policies in place to deal with peak oil.

The answer, in several instances: “How do you spell that?”

The Treasury referred me to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (“This is not a treasury matter.”) DEBERR said it predicts no problems “for the foreseeable future”. Ultimately, a spokesman said, the world may never run out of oil because “new forms of energy may come through to fuel transportation and so on”. (He didn’t elaborate.) The Bank of England politely explained that they have no policy. The CBI mused that the issue fell between its economics team and another covering business and the environment. The ABI sent me a report it had commissioned on the long-term global impacts of climate change: this didn’t mention the word “oil” anywhere.

One oil company was willing to talk to me but only on a totally off-the-record basis. This nervous precaution is telling, particularly since what I was told was freely available on the internet. 

But a BP spokesman scoffed: "Why should we have a policy on peak oil? Peak Oil is just a brand, a consultancy, a bunch of academics going round making money selling books and talking at conferences.”

I didn’t find this convincing, but to be sure I decided to find out how much money the retired geologists and economists and others in Aspo are paid. I learned that one of the best-known individuals in Aspo recently accepted just £200 for a speech. Is that a lot? Brendan Barns, of the leading public speaking agency Speakers for Business, says £200 would not cover most people’s travel expenses. “It’s a paltry amount. What would you get from any professional, a lawyer or an accountant, for £200? Nothing. For BP to say they’re doing this for the money is laughable.”

BP, by contrast, makes billions of pounds in profits each year. It’s not hard to see which side has the greater financial stake in this argument.

Comments

[Paul Newbold]

Darren, the EWG report www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oil_Exec_Summary_10-2007.pdf claims that peak oil is happening now (I really, really, hope they're wrong!).
All of the discoveries you've listed over the last 8 years add up to about 1 years current consumption (about 30 billion barrels pa).

My main concern is that there seems to be little sense of urgency in the govt to do something about the possibility asap. They're even considering expanding Heathrow when there's a real possibility that soaring av fuel prices will kill demand before it's finished.
The resources thus proposed should be diverted to any of the possibilities I mentioned in my 1st post at the foot of this page (ASAP).

[Darren]

The point regarding the discovery of oil would lead you to believe that no large oilfields have been discovered since 2003, and indeed, that the discoveries have been all but tiny since 1948, is slightly misleading. While it is obviously true to say that discoveries are smaller and rarer by comparison with the middle half of the last century, there have been many large oilfields found since 2000. A 5 minute search will find the following and many more:

Kazakhstan, 2000 - 12bn barrels; Ghana, 2007 - 600m; US Gulf, 2006 - several bn; Brazil, 2005 - 700m; Brazil, 2007 - 12bn.

Large gas discoveries have also taken place. It's interesting to note too that oil production in Africa is set to increase until after 2020. (EWG, Crude Oil, The Supply Outlook, October 2007).

Also, in response to some calls for covering the country in large swathes of wind farms - don't you think it's about time we started thinking local to act global? Renewable energy creation is ultimately more beneficial if done on an individual property or estate level. We don't need to put more of our countryside out of bounds by erecting windfarms everywhere, some are needed certainly. But they are not a panacea.

[Martin]

Stan wrote:

"The manufacture of plastic parts rather than metal parts also provides fossil fuel energy savings.
All this results in sustainable use of a finite resource."

You have a very strange definition of the word sustainable.Think about it for a second. Usage of a finite resource is never sustainable in the true sense of the word that it can be sustained indefinitely.

[peter]

Peak oil or not is not the problem, the oil isnt ours meaning the Wests. Its mainly owned by states that have only so-so relationships with us and they are not obligated by any treaty to sell us their oil. If the owners of the oil decide not to sell today but only at $140 for example then that very act will ensure that they get their price in the not too distant future. Unless u need the cash there is no good reason to sell oil, its on a par with what brown did with our gold. What would happen if oil producers priced their product in grams of weapons grade plutonium?What if Russia gives oil producers in the mideast nuclear energy and then uses its influence to get them to cut supplies to the west whilst Russia simultaneously does likewise?

[Andrew]

Oil runs out not when the last drop is brought to the surface.

Oil runs out when it's just too expensive to use because of it's scarcity.

[Tariq Ahmad]

I am a petroleum engineer. I do believe that there is a finite amount of oil. However we have only produced less than 20% of the oil the oil fields that have been discovered. We obviously can produce a lot more than that, so this peak oil thing is only convincing if we believe that we cannot increase the recovery from exisiting fields.

As time goes by we have shown that the peak oil keeps on getting postponed when I was in high school in Colorado, in 1977 my class mates told me that being a petroleum engineer would be a waste of time as we wont have any oil, but surely we are producing a lot more oil today than in 1977!

[Paul Newbold]

Mr. R. L. Hails: What you describe (I am not familiar with the details) doesn't look junk science, but rather an hypothesis (mercury released from coal may cause neurological defects?) that was disproved by the factors you state. Unless you are hypothesising the factors to challenge the studies?

Incidentally, I'm not afraid of UFOs, of goblins or demons, but I'm seriously concerned with the way that commodity prices are heading strongly upwards (coal, oil, copper. etc.). Someone is putting their money where there mouth is as far as supply and demand are concerned.

[Andrew]

I'm no scientist, and I know there are alternative cleaner fuels out there to use. But the daily experience is of the rapidly increasing cost at the fuel pumps, for motorists, and the haulage industry. Leaving aside Peak Oil considerations, and rear view mirror audits of Barels of Oil produced yearly. The pace and scale of oil price inflation is soon going to catch us all out.

The ramifications of these punitive increases will soon be directly impacting on our current western way of life, affecting how, and where we work, how we heat our homes, etc. Inflationary pressures on tranportation costs, and oil based products, which is practically everything that is transported, will have immediate effects, this is the clear and present danger and we are all going to have to deal with it shortly. Some of these effects may actually improve our way of life, and should improve the environment, ie. less air miles travelled, as produce is grown transported and sold locally. It may help our own struggling farmers to compete against international producers. Housing, workplaces, and shops may have to be reconfigured allowing for the fact that people will not be able to travel too far.

A second consideration being that any new technologies and transport infrastructure based upon them could take years and considerable planning and organisation to roll out, and judging by the glib dismissive comments by the main players mentioned in the above article, can we expect the dynamism and urgency required to undertake the task.

What we need NOW is focussed joined up thinking, by apolitical bodies, scientists and economists to address this problem.

[Mr. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.]

After forty years of energy engineering, I have come to except, but not accept hogwash, as writings on most energy subjects. Example: It has been illegal, in the US, for two generations, to explore Alaska for oil. Ergo no one knows what recoverable oil stocks exist. The peak may be a plateau. Example: the scientific studies damning mercury from coal plants are based on fish harvested from the Faroe Islands, and Seychelles Islands. The former is volcanic, the latter is not. Fish uptake is an order of magnitude larger in these fishing cultures than in ours. Subtle dose related effects in 7 year olds were found in the Faroe population, no effect was found in among Seychelles people. Mercury is expelled from volcanoes, enters the food chain via aquatic vents, and is concentrated in higher predator fish flesh. There is nothing, other than junk science, tying coal combustion to real health problems involving mercury. People who fear this claptrap, should fear UFOs.

[Rod Rainey]

The solution is simple - stop breeding. If all women were compulsorily sterilised after one baby, the world's population would drop by a factor of 10 this century. We would then have enough of everything to go round.

The pharmaceutical industry could surely come up with the technology, if asked.

[Paul Newbold]

To Alastair Carnegie: I have checked out "Gull Island" North West coast of Alaska. The only references I found to supposed huge reserves were in conspiracy theorist, and creationist websites.

Do you have any reliable data or references from scientists and/or oil companies etc?

[Thomas]

Try to visualize the world 500 years from now vs the world 500 years ago. Even if the human race has developed "free" energy & solved many biological puzzles, we as a species will not survive long term. Sure, we may extend ourselves for another 1,000 years, 10,000, or possibly even a million .
But ten million years from now, when the planet is still only middle age, there won't be a trace of us, not even as usable "biomass".

[Stan Coveney]

“But how can fossil fuels, by definition a finite resource, be used “sustainably (sic)”. You either use them, or you don’t. “

“I thanked him for his written response,” Hemming tells me. “It was a load of bollocks but I thanked him."

Obviously Mr Hemming had not bothered to think or to think clearly about sustainability of fossil fuels. Just about everything we manufacture uses oil. Most common are the plastics many of which can be recycled. Plastics used in place of steel and other metals in vehicle manufacture reduce weight with the effect that vehicles use less fuel to propel them. The manufacture of plastic parts rather than metal parts also provides fossil fuel energy savings.
All this results in sustainable use of a finite resource.
Who knows maybe hydrogen fuel for vehicles and other technologies not yet created may make the use of oil unnecessary before supplies are exhausted.

I believe that Sir David King’s response to Mr Hemming was entirely reasonable and appropriate. But I guess most eco-warriors would be sneer at any response that did not fit with their gleefully apocalyptic vision for our world.

[Ben]

I agree with the comment on 'Peak Population'.

That will be the real killer.

[Chris Coles]

If one of the near earth asteroids hits the planet, the shock wave might very well close off every drill hole in the oil industry and then we would have none. On the other hand, if we go on burning hydrocarbons by the GT, the temperature of the planet will continue to rise accordingly. (See Scientific American February 2008 for the report about ice that just might slide suddenly into the oceans to give an instant sea level rise of between 20 and 170 metres).

I believe that there is a very good chance that someone has already written down how we might get at new sources of energy other than hydrocarbon that will make the debate irrelevant. It is no use worrying about what might happen, when as a species, we have repeatedly suffered major setbacks, (we have not suddenly "arrived" on the planet but have been here for millions of years), and have survived. The most sensible will instead worry about survival in every circumstance. Every, being the watch word.

[Alastair Carnegie]

Check out "Gull Island" North West coast of Alaska. There appear to be more proven reserves of oil up there than in the history of oil exploration. Certainly sufficient for America to be entirely independent of external supplies for another two centuries. The Saudi Arabia Fields are dwarfed by Alaska. The oil is exceptionally high quality as well. sweet low sulphur and a doddle to refine. Now say, after checking out these unequivocal facts, that there is a "Peak Oil Crisis" .

[allen laughen]

The dollar is bollocks, mate...
We, the stupid in the good ol' us of a
are giving the worlds economy a good
"rude pumping" with our incontinence on bad borrowing and loaning policies.
the iraq blood bath is only accelerating
our dollars demise.
I am ready for the not too distant day when it is only good for wiping the ol' bum......

[Bill]

The blogger doesn't understand economics.

Even if it takes 3 barrels-equivalent of natural gas to produce 1 barrel of oil (from oil sands), that is fine as long as the economic value of oil is greater than the value of the natural gas.

In other words, energy ROI doesn't matter, financial ROI does.

And the reason oil production is down globally is the fact that more and more oil is under the control of 3rd world governments, who couldn't care less about maximizing oil production.

E.g. Venezuela's production has dropped because Chavez replaced profesional engineers with his political cronies who know little about pumping oil (he's also looting the oil sector, delaying maintenance and repairs)

Oil production will increase when a right-wing junta deposes him and invites Exxon-Mobil (or BP, or Total) back into the country.

[Mike Donald]

Was it the Times a week or two ago refeerred us to this?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This is a website I continually dip (pun) into.

[John Palmer]

Barrel of oil in energy to get a barrel out of the ground would appear to be the limiting factor but in practice oil is so important that any source of energy could be used to get it out of the ground.

Solar power, wind power, wave power, etc could all be used to power the pumps.

Everything from plastics to fertiliser is made from oil. We can't afford to leave it in the ground.

[mike]

I would suggest not going to the oildrum website as I think that if you stare at something really hard for a long time without blinking you dont see too clearly.

All the correct comment about EOR, other brown field development, unconventional oil and demand side responses aside, the unacknowledged elephant in the room remains the likliehood that cheap (<$10/bbl) OPEC reserves are vastly UNDERSTATED as I explained below.

People who stare myopically at the Saudi's oldest and largest oil field forget that vast areas of Saudi, Iraq, Iran and many others remain, in 21st century terms, to all intents and puposes unexplored! And this while the worlds most advanced technology is used to scour the North Sea for 20 million barrel finds that will cost perhaps $20/bbl to produce even through existing rigs and pipes!!!

Iraq's estimated oil reserve's have doubled in the last year (see below). And this is only the very beginning. They will, I expect, increase much more if and when a full and proper exploration programme is undertaken.

The world has plenty of cheap to produce oil (and gas) reserves for the coming decades. Its owners however persue a profoundly mistaken policy of cartel and resource nationalism, which the rulers know is stupid however it is popular and allows them to take their personal desired income so thus it is "best" for them!

Maybe the owners of resources, the people, might realise that a cartel that ends the main market for its product is not in its interests? I think OPEC understands this well, and try's to milk us like a good cow. I hope Iraq's parliament sees sense and passes an oil law that allows the most advanced oil companies fair profits to show what happens when a nations wealth is managed to maximise the cash return to the nation rather than to serve some cretinous ideas of resource nationalism and beggar thyself polices of no profit for anyone else.

Iraqi production zooming through 10 md/b in 2015 would be fine to juxtapose against currently projected Iranian net oil imports.

Buy at the sound of (oil)drums! (err, isnt that cannons? ed)

[Phil Harding]

We have already passed "peak population" - there are some scientists who maintain that the planet cannot feed more than 1 billion without oil and gas to raise food production to its current unsustainable level. Food security is an issue closely related to peak oil and unlimited population growth and the UK, with its growing dependence on imported food, will be increasingly vulnerable as climate change reduces in size the food growing regions of the planet. The longer humanity takes to start to tackle population growth (while moving to a low carbon economy), the more disastrous the consequences. Let's hope it's not too late...

[Terry]

There seems to be a lot of oil companies lining up behind missing the mark for future demand:Total, Cheveron, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, Hess I would think that they would actually have a few petroleum geologist on staff.
These are the same companies many here are counting on to deliver the oceans of oil they are talking about. There will be oil, probably a lot of it, but most won't be able to afford it. Peak Oil production isn't all about reserves but a vast complex of geopolitical, infrastructure, geological complexities violence and wars along with recourse nationalism's and energy returned on energy invested calculations -- oil sure, economically recoverable to make 100 millions barrels per day -now strap your selves in boys were in for one hell of a ride.

[Steve P]

Even if we assume the more pessimistic forecasts of the peak, about 1.5 gigatonnes of oil will be being produced in about 2050. Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil can probably be ratcheted up to 0.5-0.75Gt by 2050. Cellulosic biomass (from switchgrass, woody wastes etc NOT maize or other normal starchy foodcrops) could probably be raised to 0.5-0.75GT oil equivalent as well. Some natural gas (depending on total resources which are probably very large if we include unconventional sources) could be directly substituted for oil (as compressed natural gas) or liquefied (to synthetic diesel / kerosene)- lets say 0.25-0.5 GT oil equivalent. So far we have from 2.75 to 3.5 GT oil equivalent of liquid fuels by 2050. How much would we need by then assuming very efficient cars (plug in hybrids with, lets say 60miles elecrical range and 70mpg when operating on fuel- almost certainly achievable by 2035, allowing full penetration by 2050) and planes (100 passenger miles per gallon - 75pmpg is already achievable on a well loaded plane)? We'll assume 9 billion people and 3 billion cars doing 10000 miles each half electrical only (from non oil generated electricity) and each person travelling 2000 miles annually on a plane. These are huge increases on present levels allowing poorer people an increased share of the cake. Do the maths and it comes out at about 1.3-1.4GT. Allowing a billion tonnes of "oil" for chemical feedstocks (partly to make the carbon fibre etc for efficient planes and cars) and another billion tonnes for shipping, other portable uses etc (a generous allowance) we get a demand of something like 3.5 GT. Actual demand might be a bit more or (probably) less at high oil prices. However the gap between production so far and demand is something between 0.75 GT and zero. Lets be pessimistic and assume a gap of 1.0 GT incase some figures are out the wrong way, where would the extra billion tonnes come from? Coal liquefaction is one possibility. It would take about 2.5 billion tonnes of coal to produce 1 billion tonnes (GT) of liquid fuels. This amount of coal could easily be supplied assuming annual production of about 10 billion tonnes (a rough doubling of production) by 2050. This would leave 7.5 billion tonnes for steel, industry and electricity production (all with carbon capture of course to reduce CO2 emissions). All of the above technologies would be easily competitive at $150 per barrell (50% above present levels) especially given over 4 decades of development. All stationary energy uses could be converted to electricity (none of which need be generated from oil or gas by 2050 - coal with carbon capture, nuclear, wind , solar, geothermal, biomass are all possibilities) and some gas. Efficiency could massively cut domestic energy use by 2050 as well. The 2 billion tonnes of oil I've allowed for ships, industry and other portable uses is also generous and might yield a surplus (of liquid fuels or coal not needed for liquefaction). All this infrastructure could be built by 2050 with the right market incentives (eg western governments guaranteeing to keep oil prices high via extra taxation if middle east despots drop the price to massacre market alternatives). I haven't even mentioned other possiblilities quite likely by 2050 such as hydrogen fuel cells using hydrogen derived from natural gas, then biomass then solar etc, or super high capacity fast recharging batteries allowing full electrification of the car fleet. I could go on but my point is basically that conventional oil may (or may not) be about to peak but this need not be a disaster because alternatives exist and can be brought on in time. Incidentally, the growing conventional oil gap between an early peak and 2050 could be bridged by gas to liquids using gas freed up from electricity generation and replacement of inefficient boilers, windows etc, a growing supply of heavy oil and biomass and efficiency all pushed forward by high oil prices. Incidentally the EROEI for tar sands is about 3 (3 units of oil for one of gas and electricity) and cellulosic biomass is potentially even higher (some analyses say 8) so that is not going to be a problem. Extraneous carbon from liquefaction processes (ie that not appearing in the final liquid fuels) could be largely captured for sequestration reducing the potential CO2 problem. The pessimism is probably overdone.

[matt]

"Reserve all hydrocarbon fuel for mobility use, cars, motorcycles, boats and aircraft" - Andrew Fanner... I'll be interested to see how your life without plastic goes! - maybe the green police won't spot you as you'll be wearing too much hemp. ( though guess they'll see you getting out you Hummer..)

[Christian]

The arguments here seem to boil down to: there is enough oil, don't worry about it; vs. there isn't enough oil, lets worry about it.

I think the 2nd argument is correct. First, oil is considered a stock, meaning that it is not being replenished, therefore it is inherently finite (vis-a-vis a "flow," which is inexhaustible, eg the sun). Now, we may have enough oil for a given time frame at current levels of use. However, the level of demand is not static, and has been shown to be increasing exponentially, which will therefore decrease the timeframe of usable oil supplies.

Most of the world's oil is used by an exceptionally small percentage of the global population, and given that number of people aspiring to a high oil use lifestyle is growing (ie China and India), the question is how long can oil form the basis of the global economy?

Coal is already used in large amounts (ex. in the US for power generation; the US has large deposits of coal). However, increasing its usage would increase pollution such as CO2, which will increase damage to the global environment. Coal also has a lower level of exergy (great term, look it up, too long to discuss here), requiring more of it to be burned for an equal amount of work. One example of environmental feedback linked to coal is mercury levels in fish stocks. Murcury is released from coal, where, by the process of bioaccumulation, it ends up in dangerous amounts in fish.

It has been shown that decreases in energy use does not correlate to a decline in lifestyle and in many instances are quite simple. Increases in energy efficiency and a move away from a pre-packaged, throw-away Western lifestyle IS required. Is it really worth poisoning the planet, and ourselves and future generations, for the "luxuries" of SUVs, disposable water bottles, etc?

[Davis]

I recommend heartily that you go to The Oil Drum to learn about this topic. They have wonderful empirical and data heavy posts that you can learn a lot from...

http://theoildrum.com

[Al]

I don't see the problem - we just need another planet to explore. And if you don't think that likely, then you must admit that one day we WILL run out of oil and gas - the trick is to be long gone by then......

[Bruno]

The DEBERR spokesman is right. We will never run out of oil.
Eventually the demand for oil will outstrip the supply and the price will increase. We are seeing that now with China and India buying larger amounts of oil. Oil will become so expensive that it will make sense to use cheaper (but perhaps less efficient) alternative fuels. So, for example, with oil at, say, $300 a barrel, I might be forced to ride my bicycle to work.

[paul wilcox]

Why are we still going on about Oil, we have all the energy we need from the SUN (that big hot thing in the sky) it's called Nuclear Energy plus of course the Nuclear Energy we could generate on the ground.

Either way, if politics and greedy oil companies got out of the way we could provide all the electrical energy we will EVER need (photo electric cells across the deserts of the world can collect 10kWatts per square metre per hour ... just ONE square mile would produce over 30,000 MEGAWATTS per hour) and from that a portable fuel called liquid HYDROGEN for vehicles and easy transport to replace natural gas ...which is as clean as you can get.

Also Geothermal and roof top solar cells and heat exchangers - even in the UK can gather 5kW/Sq Metre per hour, which is a LOT - almost enough for the energy needs of each home

The problem is SOLVED,

The ONLY problem is the vested interests of the wealthy oil companies and the Arabs etc. who want to keep making money from a resource that NEVER WAS THEIRS.

The expression that comes to mind.

If there's a will .... there's a way

Truth is there IS NO WILL ......

[greg palmer]

No-one's mentioned tax. Rates of tax, the ways tax is applied and the methods that are available in different regimes to avoid tax are all major contributors to the behaviour of the exploration and production companies. Peak oil would happen tomorrow if tax was upped to 100pc.......Take a look at the way Brown has taxed the North Sea producers during the last 10 years and then look at what percentage of oil and gas that could have been produced actually was produced, and you will see what I mean

[PeterK]

Oh and one further point. Crude oil is actually very cheap. One barrel is about 116 litres or 210 pints. So $100/barrel equates to about $0.5/pint or 25p /pint. I can just about remember when beer was that price! This partially explains why enhanced recovery is still only marginally economic as anything you do (like add surfactants) has to be at a few pence/pint cost.

[Hugh Jampton]

I don't understand our continuing reliance on oil for energy. Why doesn't starfleet use warp engine technology back here on Earth - limitless energy and all from di-lithium!

[PeterK]

First to those who say we have heard all this before. Yes we have and indeed those earlier predictions were correct. King-Huppert in 1956 predicted that the peak for production from ON SHORE USA would occur in late 1980's early 90's and was indeed right. People tend to forget about the on shore USA bit! Using similar ideas indicate that we are about at peak oil production now.
Second on exploration. Yes exploration goes through phases but we now have a long history of exploration and pretty much all the world's easily accessible basins have been explored. Production is already having to move to very expensive locations (eg very deep water).

So the conclusion is that indeed for conventional cheap oil there is probably only around 40 years left and that as demand increases the prioces will only continue to escalate (one interesting figure is that global energy demand has grown exactly in line with global population for about the last 30-40 years).

Of course there are non-conventional hydrocarbon supplies, but these are both very expensive and energy expensive to produce. Also the average global recovery factor is currently 30% (ie 2/3 of the oil is currently left in the ground on abandonment). In some places recovery factors are up to 60-70% but this is by far the exception. The main reason is that for decades oil companies stopped doing any research work in this area and enhanced oil recovery was considered a bit of a joke. Unless these companies (&/or government) satart putting serious money into this kind of research it simply will not happen in time to help.

Finally oil is not just an energy source is is the basic feedstock for the petrochemicals industry. Things like plastic come from oil. As the price of crude escalates so will the price of these. The consequences for the economy could be very large.

[Peter Kelly]

I think only one of the above comments mentions the fact that a significant proportion (ca 40% or more) of the oil reserve in any field remains as 'deferred oil' until tertiary or Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) recovery techniques are employed. This involves polymer or surfactant flooding of the reservoir and will further 'liberate' previously untapped oil. The Oil Industry was quite keen to develop this technology but always claimed that it was too costly when the oil price was low. Now it is in the region of around $90-$100 a barrel what has changed, I wonder, to continue ignoring this potential?

[mike]

Its just not true to say that OPEC is unable to produce more.

OPEC reserves are almost certainly like Iraqi reserves, VASTLY understated, perhaps by more than 100%

OPEC reserves have not been restated since 1988 because reserves set quotas and in 1988 it was so hard to find concensus amongst OPEC members it was decided never to do the excercise again!!

Since 1998:
- oil exploration and production has been TRANSFORMED
- OPEC reserves have been (mis) managed by some of the most incompetent and corrupt companies ever seen, the OPEC state oil companies
- exploration in OPEC countries has been minute, outdated and incompetent

Thus, when we see in Iraq western oil comps asked merely re-examine the existing inadequate seismic data collected by INOC, they can DOUBLE proven reserves (another 100 bn bbls) overnight!!

IF western oil comps were allowed to explore for and develop OPEC reserves usingf the very latest techniques then reserves would, IMO, double at least, OPEC countries market share and revenue would increase while real prices would fall from todays ridiculous highs (the worlds MOST expensive to produce oil costs less than $25 per bbl, 25% of current price)

No OPEC country will allow any outsider to audit their reserves or examine their geological data for the fear that this catostrophic waste of OPEC resources is exposed to the people who own these reserves, the citizens of OPEC countries. (this is useful for the scaremongers who can claim it is becasuse the reserves are less when the truth is they are much more, what irony)

Peak oil, watch the Malthusians turn it into a short term peak due to failure by the illegal OPEC cartel to develop the worlds plentiful oil.

Didnt one predict peak in 2006? ROFL

OPEC will be written in history as the corrupt cartel that wasted pretty much all of their main asset on a corrupty bloated and, most importnatly, otherwise WORTHLESS elite. Just like coal, MOST of OPEC's reserves will be left worthlessly in the ground

I refer the reader to the makers of lamp oil as the "new light" (electricity and Edisons light bulb) came along

$100 bbls will produce many many lightbulbs you see!

p.s. There is NO other commodity sold on such favourable terms to the producer than oil. NONE. This market failure is the reason peak oilsters can sell books and avoid doing something socially useful

[john pownall]

What is incredible is the fact that no matter how high you put the price, demand appears to remain high. We are all hooked to the car.
Converting China, India, and Africa to car hungry nations will significantly increase demand, and that is happening now. Peak oil is only half the story; the main problem is that we are nowhere near peak demand.Even if we have not reached peak oil; we are bound to reach post - oil sooner than we imagined if the world's desire for the black stuff continues to grow at this rate.
Ironically, in terms of the environment, the sooner we reach that moment, the better. But the effects on human civilization will be devastating. We simply have no plan B.

[Adam1]

Frank L @"We may be at peak cheap oil, but oil will not run out. Fossil fuels as you know it may run out, but not for at least the next 300-500 years."

Peak oil is about end of cheap oil. It refers to the point when production reaches a maximum, not the point when production ceases.

Production of all fossil fuels, uranium and indeed all minerals always reaches a peak then goes into decline. That is the physical reality. The peak is the point when the rate of production reaches a maximum. It is also the point when most of the easy-to-get stuff has been used up. What's left costs a lot more, takes more energy to extract and cannot be extracted as fast as before.

Saying that fossil fuels will last 300 - 500 years is a completely meaningless statement, for two reasons. One, because it's the rate at which you can get them out of the ground and convert them to useful energy which matters. Two, because how long they "last" depends entirely on how quickly you use them up. If we had only burned 0.1% of the coal annually that we currently have been doing, it would have lasted thousands of years. If we ramp up production as we have been doing it will peak very quickly. Current estimates are that it will peak in the 2020s.

ASLAN - what you seem to be saying is that if only the NOCs (national oil companies) were more efficient, we'd have no problems. In other words: we'd be more energy-secure if we burn our way through what's left even more quickly that we currently are. That is truly daft. Just think about it!

[John B]

What you have to realise is that there is no fuel guage in the ground to see how much oil is in the ground. In the oil exploration field there are only indirect indications of oil, no direct measures. The best way to measure how much oil there is too drill a hole and see how fast it comes out and how slowly it is stopping. That is why the idea of calculating the oil reserves is such a fudge - no-one knows. What is known is that the more oil you look for the more you find, even though the exact amount is not clear. We should be looking at alternative energies but we probably have more time than the scaremongers believe.

[Jaap den Haan]

Certain masters of wisdom are training scientists through experiences of phenomenal powers by demonstrating the use of the science of light to achieve transfiguration, transportation and communication. All living cells are interconnected by light. The time will come when we can transform this light. Adepts and masters can do this, and one day, the alleged world teacher Maitreya says, we will be able to do it. Matter can be transported from one place to another through light. Even now scientists are being taught how to materialise through a technology of light so that objects can be transmitted from one part of the world to another. This technology — using colour, sound and vibration — is the science of the 21st century. It will make society more prosperous and happy. People will enjoy life more, many diseases will be healed instantaneously. The technology of light will meet all our energy needs in the 21st century. It will need no huge budgets to maintain because it will be devised and controlled by intellectuals who do not look for billions of pounds of profits to satisfy them, Maitreya's associate in London has said. Once built, the technology will last for at least 2,500 years, until the next cycle of evolution. Environment and energy will be the top priorities of the new era. Last will be defence, because there will be nothing to defend. When light is at your command you do not need guns and bullets.

[John Benn]

Lor' sakes ..., who let the dogs out last night. I haven't heard such a commotion since firework night. Please get back to sleep immediately, your doing my head in. Oil ..., humbug! Leave it to the politicians, that's what they're here for. Fine, brave men, like Gordon and Tony and ..., er ..., yes, well, I'll sleep on it, if I'm allowed; know what I mean, er ..., 'arry?" Sincerely yours, John Benn.

[pete best]

As has been stated many times if cheap easy oil is so plentiful and supply and demand so easy to mitigate and control then why are we digging up the tar sands in Athabasca/Alberta already (its energy and water intensive to do so) and why oh why is China, Australia and others building CTL/GTL plants if cheap easy oil is so plentiful.

Truth is that at $101 a barrel today and OPEC unable to pump any significant amount more for the time being until the infrastructure is upgraded to do so then even then supply can only meet demand for a few years to come. 86 Mb/d in 2008 becomes 95 Mb/d in 2012 which is probably the global limit. The projected 115 Mb/d required by 2015 according to the IEA is not going to happen because the oil does not exist to do so.

As we pump more so does existing wells pump less so not only do we have to extract more and more we also have to make up for existing declines which is not possible.

Lets wake up to ourselves. Heavy oils being extracted and processed along with CTL plants exacerbate climate change and mean that oil is waning overall globally. Sure we have natural gas and coal but gas is going to peak only 5/10 years after oil and coal, well proven reserves may have been exaggerated according to some recent reports and hence CTL might be a big mistake to.

[Mike]

Steve, it's not about winners or losers, we are all on the same planet.

[Mike]

The increase in oil prices due to "peak oil" maybe a blessing in disguise. Over the past century we have been inadvertantly reconverting our atmosphere back into that of the pliocene epoch. Although many will dismiss this as lefty scare mongering, this could be catastrophic. It is no coincidence that in the hundred thousand years or so that homo sapiens has been around, advanced civilisation has appeared now. This happened thanks to wide scale agriculture, which in turn was made possible due to a stable, favourable climate. If we change the atmosphere significantly, we can say goodbye to a cheap, reliable sources of food,
which with a global population of 6.5bn, will cause widespread chaos. It is time to face the reality that we must put an end to the "oil age", as important for human development as it has been, and develop a more sustainable energy source.

[Steve Edwards]

Constrained finite supply, unchecked increases in demand and consumption causing climate changing emissions...

Its time to invest heavily in a sustainable post-oil sustainable economy.

The flawed arguments and disinformation being spread by those seeking to protect their profitable interests in the status quo detract from the clear reality that smart countries are already leading a drive towards renewable energy sources.

There will be clear winners and losers in the transition to post-carbon economics.

[Andrew Fanner]

Well, as we have yet to find a better system of mid range personal and long range international transoport than one based on oil, we had best focus a bit.

Reserve all hydrocarbon fuel for mobility use, cars, motorcycles, boats and aircraft, and run everything else on electricity derived from nuclear, renewables and CC coal plant.

Whopps, here come the green police, I mentioned the N word...

[Howard Grattan]

Nice article - 20 years ago, no-one would have given oil supplies much thought. As possible shortage becomes a reality, it is becoming apparent that oil is perhaps a God-given gift to the world, that should not be squandered. Never mind oil reserves lasting another 200 years; we should be computing how to stretch them out for another 2 million years, such is their importance. It is possible; but we have to start planning for it soon, and before global warming can get a hold, too.

[David Pickering]

Perhaps people should consult real oil industry geoscientists. The focus of today's industry is to use smarter, more effective technology to target smaller, but more numerous traps. There is plenty left - the problem is that consumption is far exceeding production.

[RON PAUL]

Isn't it time for more countries to go nuclear, really?

The oil companies must be spending a small fortune through their global think tanks to continue to fund the lies that they are spreading about global warming and peak oil in the MSM. Not sure how this article made it by their censors, however...

BTW I am not really Ron Paul, I just want to see if the MSM in Britain is really paying attention...

[John M]

Stating that oil discoveries fell in 2000 - 2003 is misleading. The reason discoveries fell during this period was lack of exploration. When the oil prices fall oil companies cut their exploration budgets. There will always be a time lag between oil prices and budgets and the oil companies re-starting exploration.

[Mike]

All in all, this is the liveliest, most erudite debate I have had the pleasure to read in The Times. Thank you all! Never the less, there are some minor truths we need to consider. First, as one alert reader pointed out, we have been searching for oil less (as it has not been profitable to do so), ergo we have found less. Second, while don't know exactly how much there oil is still in the earth, the Malthus-come-Keynes crowd has been announcing for close to 50 years that we are on the verge of running out at any moment (and we still have not run out). In fact, the size of nearly every major find has been dramatically underestimated.

Using straight mathematical "logic", social scientists in St. Louis, USA showed just a few years ago that soon women would be better athletes then men, surpassing all the men's Olympic records in track and field. Figures never lie, but liars always figure. I hope they gave their Ph.D's back.

Is the total amount finite? Certainly. But the doomsday fans give no credence to our own ingenuity. As one alert reader pointed out, we don't use coal to fire our economy any more. Our human creativity, in response to economic pressures or opportunities, have created whole industries, some employing millions, in areas that were at best flights of fancy not long ago- allowing us to write The Times from a small, electronic device on our laps for example.

If the best you can think of is windmills and Canadian tar, move out of the way for someone who can do better. (And keep the corrupt third world dictators and inept first world bureaucrats out of the way, too!)

[Graeme B]

1. Oil & gas are the best, most versatile sources of energy discovered by man to date. (do we use steam engines any more? I think not).
2. EROEI. Energy is not like other commodities - when you extract fuels, if you don't break even then you're actually using fuel. Anyone for coal / steam extraction of the oil-field dregs? (CO2-tastic)
3. Fossil fuels are an accumulation of solar energy over millions of years - harvesting what we need from renewable sources will not be easy (EROEI again).
4. Nuclear power is for making nukes, let's face it. Otherwise it's expensive, creates nasty waste & has EROEI issues (enriching fuel, pouring all that concrete for the stations, years of decommissioning etc.). and there's not that much U235 left anyway.
5. Since the green revolution, our agriculture uses a lot of oil (machinery, fertilizers, pesticides). Our economy feeds most of us, especially all the parasitic city folk: without the internal combustion engine I guess they could go back to working the fields or moving stones around though!
7. If our economy starts to starve then the whole fiat money pyramid scheme doesn't work too well. Expect unemployment, social disintegration, wars, famine in the 3rd world etc.
8. Malthus was right - at some point there won't be enough to go around - it's been fun (for some of us) but the tragedy of the commons is inevitable I'm afraid.

[Kevin]

Good to see this article in MSM. The BNP have been running this story for years. It is amazing how their beliefs and policies make it into the mainstream - a couple of years later. Sit up and pay attention folks and think outside of your blinkered present!

[mike]

Paul, yes, I had noticed the abscence of a mention of the inventor of resource scares. Odd isnt it. Since Malthus invented this jamboree I would have thought he should have been given some credit/blame. Still, he has created much work for many over the years [ ;-) ] and I suppose it distracts otherwise potentially dangerous people from other imaginary "worries".

Have you noticed how the Iraq was about oil chorus has died down as Russians, Norwegians, uncle tom cobbly and all come and develop Iraqi oil without a US company in sight (just short term service contracts for them).

And in Afghanistan, the Chinese are developing the massive copper reserves.

And you know what, until recently (I hope) some ridiculous percentage (was it 30%? ) thought Diana had been killed by MI6.

There is no peak oil in the next few decades and if the market is left alone the world will stop demanding oil long before it runs out in any physical sense.

Given emerging environmental realities it also seems unlikely that burning oil will remain (in a global sense) socially acceptable. This will likely happen long before the "peak"

[John-Paul Flintoff]

Thanks for the comments. To those who are sceptical about cheap oil running out soon (nobody, mercifully, denies that it will happen eventually), I would just point out that all your supposedly reassuring observations about plentiful reserves neglect to consider the effect on our climate of burning it all up.
Peak oil and climate chaos are intimately related: if we hadn't burned so much oil (and other fossil fuels) we'd not have emitted so much carbon.

The question of oil peaking has the potential to distress many people, but it may just conceivably motivate us to change our habits more effectively than the endless nagging about emissions: people who don't care about what comes out of the exhaust will almost certainly care about what goes into the tank - whether there is any, and how much it costs.

By the way, does anybody seriously think we would be seeing so much interest in agrofuels and tar sands, if the conventional stuff wasn't starting to run short?

[Paul Newbold]

"Malthus, the traditional pied piper for the synaptically challenged.
Posted by: mike | 26 Feb 2008 15:01:39"

Mike, you are aware that you're the only one who's mentioned him?

[mike]

and, further to my earlier post, I might add that the predicted failure to produce oil we know is there as forecast by the IEA in its new "peak in 5 years" scenario, is entirely down to bone headed resource nationalism and the illegal OPEC oil cartel who are failing to up production capacity despite having trillions in theirn laps. Instead they are stuffing their populations mouths with dollars.

I am reminded of the old Viz T-Shirt about saving the whale. It had a picture of a rotting whale on saying "I've been saving this whale for some time now". I know oil doesnt rot, but it may become worth far far less than today.

Malthus, the traditional pied piper for the synaptically challenged.

[mike]

The IEA forecast chage you refer to is the result of the IEA's assessment of the likely failure to produce oil we know is there

This is important.

Peak oil can occur today if, collectively, the sovereign powers who control global oil reserves decide (stupidly I might add) to not produce them

A REAL peak oil, and what everyone has understood up to know to be the meaning of the term "peak oil", is of course when, despite mankinds best efforts, there simply isnt enough oil

Watch how the peak oil doomsters change to this new and quite different assertion

Thus, like geneartions of disappointed Malthusians before them, they will claim they were right as the oil keeps flowing

In the mean time the market price of oil will indeed end the oil age by stimulating research and investment into new forms of energy and thus the owners of the 80+ years of reserves will find themselves thinking why they didnt learn the lesson of the owners of coal reserves which now look like they may be worthless

Been a hot winter again as well. Burn more oil forever? Are you insane?

[Fred]

This is a long article but it actually only contains 2 simple arguments in support of the writer's opinion: 1) it is becoming inefficient to produce oil and 2) oil is finite and reserves and discoveries are insufficient.

The article shows an unfortunate misunderstanding of energy and its forms and uses. The concept EROEI referred to is not a very useful concept for this debate. The linked article says this concept is not necessarily well-accepted and could be irrelevant. And that's what the advocates say! The basic flaw in this context is one of value. If the input energy is a different form than the output energy and the output energy is more valuable the transaction will continue. It is easy to construct an example: if the input is solar power which is used to power a refinery to produce usable oil from heavy oil or coal, then even if it were 10 units of energy in for 1 unit of energy in the form of oil out, the transaction may well continue since solar power has far less value (can’t transport it, variability in strength, big footprint per watt) than compact and transportable oil. Another fine example is the production of electricity which uses vast amounts of input power to produce relatively small amounts of power in electrical form. But the electricity is far more valuable than the input, say coal, as all of us know from considering having a coal-fired television in our living rooms.

Again simply referring to the link in the article, the world is very, very far from using a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil. In the oil sands fields in Canada a very large amount of energy is needed to output the oil but the input energy is primarily stranded natural gas with very little value and the output energy is very valuable transportable oil so even if the input energy is much higher than the output energy the value of the out put energy exceeds the input and the process will continue.

Forthcoming post will address point 2.

[Gerry Borthwick]

As an historical precedent oil recovery is about 33% of the find, that means that you could expect to recover 33 million barrells from a 100 million barrel field, so you then get involved in secondary and tertiary recovery and that includes drilling horizontally into known fields, that are all but conventionally depleteded.
The idea of this is to expose more of the reservoir to the production bore and hence recover more reserve.
This means that we do not have to look for new finds just better manage the ones we have a 'cash in the attic' mentallity, this is called well intervention or re- drills. The bottom line is depending on what model you use you get different figures of what the size of a field is, look at Shell estimates a couple of years ago.
It is about managing assets correctly, the real questions are do we want to use and burn haydrocarbons? is there an alternative? and how much will it cost?If we switched to something other than a hydocarbon based energy system and that includes fossil fuels coal and wood then we would be in a serious finacial meltdown simpley because of the money invested in the oil industry which is trillions of pounds.The real headache is who pays for the switch over?
And all this means is, a time scale using best geusstamets is adopted, a replentishable energy source needs to be phased in, fossil fuel dependancy phased out.Simple really!

[Frank L]

Paul, Craig suggested just that, that fossil fuels will run dry.

In any case, besides the fact that I haven't been able to take New Scientist seriously for a long time (which is why I don't have a subscription and have no intention of getting one), there's a huge, vast amount of coal out there.

As the current fossil fuels get more expensive, alternatives get, relatively, cheaper.

No matter how expensive coal is, even on current consumption trends (which take in both oil and coal together), we still have roughly 300 years left.

A short term spike in the cost of coal is nothing really, we'll just open more coal mines again. Plenty of viable mines around britain at $130 a ton.

And yes, you can still profitably make oil from coal at that cost, especially with oil at over $100 a barrel.

The problem is people are crying foul over something that, to be honest, is a problem that will work itself out.

Besides, China is going to be hit by a major recession at the end of this year, so the amount of oil they use is unlikely to increase by so much.

There's an economic storm coming alright, but it's got naff all (and, paradoxically, everything) to do with oil.

My main point is that this article is a bit naive and simplistic. It doesn't even come close to touching the real issue. Peak oil is not an issue right now as when the actual peak occurs doesn't matter.

[Paul Newbold]

Frank L, it's not news that getting oil from the desert is the cheapest and easiest way of getting at oil, but it the main difference that will make to middle eastern oil supplies reaching their peak (and their reserves may well be overstated to bag bigger OPEC quotas) is to deplete them quicker.

Tar sands and oil shales may never to able to deliver more than 5 million barrels pd (due to production bottlenecks such as gas and water availability and cost) which is a lot less than 10% of demand.

As for $50 a barrel for SA coal; was that before the recent surges in coal price? We may also be heading towards a peak in coal production sooner rather than later too. See http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19726391.800-coal-bleak-outlook-for-the-black-stuff.html
(apologies, but you need a subscription to get the full article)

The cost of commissioning solar, wind, wave, nuclear will also increase as the cost of energy inputs go up after peak oil. Which is why they should be put in place now when they're cheapish and apparently uneconomical, not afterwards.

No one suggested that we will run out of fossil fuels, but the issue is the massive economic problems that will occur then energy is 2 or 3 times higher than now, with the cost increase taking place very quickly, like what happened in the '70s oil shocks, but much worse.

[Frank L]

Craig, we have more than enough coal to keep us in dead dinosaur power for a very long time indeed.

But if the current green and nuclear movements are successful, we'll just adjust the demand curve and oil made from other processes will become less competitive.

Currently the Saudis can take that black stuff out of the ground for less than $20 a barrel.

South Africa can make oil out of coal for $50 a barrel.

$100 a barrel makes biofuels (ew, an absolutely horrific concept) very economic, along with other nastiness like shales, peat oil, deep water and polar icecap exploration perfectly economically viable.

But, of course, at $100 a barrel, solar, wind, wave, nuclear etc... are also perfectly good too.

We may be at peak cheap oil, but oil will not run out. Fossil fuels as you know it may run out, but not for at least the next 300-500 years.

In fact, I would venture that they will never run out. They'll just get more expensive, at which point, we just replace them with alternatives, of which, there are plenty that are currently economically unviable.

This article is almost exactly like the arguments around the turn of the 20th century that Britain was heading for economic collapse because the country couldn't support any more horses.

[Craig]

I find it interesting that despite the content of this blog entry, only Paul Newbold (oh, and a dubious reference from Jeremy Poynton) actually addresses the issue at hand. Its hard to face, but face it; one day fossil fuels WILL run dry. They simply cannot be formed quickly enough, naturally, to allow replacement. And the technological view - prominent I believe in the US - that before we run out of oil, something new and different will come along, is sticking your head in the sand and passing the buck - literally! And Paul - clean coal, wind, solar, hydrogen etc. YES...Nuclear? Really? I think not!

[Frank L]

This is a very old concept, from the 19th century.

Here's my number one problem with this article:

Coal.

If you don't understand what I mean by this, I'll give you a hint; South Africa and the Fischer-Tropsch process.

[Jeremy Poynton]

Many of us out here suspect that the recent attempts by ZaNu Labour PF to hack away at all our individual freedoms is not so much a reaction to terrorism (after all, the IRA dealt is far heavier blows than our few home made Muslim hotheads), but to ensure that they have the infrastructure in place to deal with the inevitable riots when fuel runs out, and food cannot be distributed.

[Aslan]

I am a geophysicist with 18 years experience in the oil industry

A few corrections to mis apprehensions
-
NEW Discoveires are not keeping up with consumption (the true figure is about 33% rather than 20%) bur reserves growth (ie underestimates or improved recovery are balancing most of the present day production. Many IOC's (International oil companies report stable reserves because of this - the picture is more opaque for National OIl companies

Exploration significantly declined in the 1990's due to the low oil price - it has since only partially recovered due to very high costs (rigs and seismic cost double to treble original values.

Many countires around the world are closed to IOC's and are national monopolies. Manopolies in anay industry breed inefficiency. If IOC's were allowed to explore world wide then we would have more oil available

1. Jerry Legget never worked in the oil industry - he was an academic at IMperial college when I was an undergraduate - he is a committed environmentalist with his own views - ad hominem I know
2. ASPO is run by Colin Campbell a man with some racist views which I as a black man find offensive - check out some of his comments on his website - he has been forecasting doom since 1989 and has been consistently proven wrong - ad hominem I know

[paul newbold]

The calibre of politicians we have in much of the western world is a bit depressing - far to many are scientifically illiterate career politicos focussed only on the next election. They are an unbelievably uninspiring bunch.

We should have been spending the last 5 years installing wind farms, a barrage across the severn, new nuclear plants, electrifying transportation such as the east coast mainline, implementing clean coal, etc. etc. (and keeping the British Isle's population down, not rocketing upwards)

We should not wait until after peak oil is reached as it will trigger the mother of all recessions, and we will be too skint to do anything. Treat it like the potential national emergency it is!

[kevin]

It isn't Peak Oil but Peak Dollar....the oil is merely a energy resource - but the global financial system is tied to dollars via oil. This is the reality Peak Dollar - and has nothing to do with oil....but social order.