From American University via Eurekalert, professor Matthew Nisbet demonstrates that the impact of peak petroleum on public health may be a way to unite conservatives and liberals in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy.
Peak Oil & Public Health: Political Common Ground?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 8, 2011)—Peak petroleum—the point at which the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production begins to decline—is a hot topic in scientific and energy circles. When will it occur? What will the impact be? While geologists and economists debate the specifics, American University School of Communication professor Matthew Nisbet believes peak petroleum and the associated risks to public health may provide an opportunity to bring conservatives and liberals together in the move toward alternative forms of energy.
“Somewhat surprisingly, conservatives are more likely to associate a major spike in oil prices with a strong threat to public health,” said Nisbet—an expert in the field of climate and energy communication. “This could present a gateway to engagement with conservatives on energy policy.”
In a forthcoming peer-reviewed study at the American Journal of Public Health, Nisbet and his co-authors find that 76% of people in a recent survey believe oil prices are either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to triple in the next five years. A dramatic spike in oil prices is a commonly recognized outcome of peak petroleum.
Even more telling is that 69% of respondents believe a sharp rise in oil prices would be either “very harmful” (44%) or “somewhat harmful” (25%) to the health of Americans. According to the survey, strong conservatives were the most sensitive to these possible risks, with 53% believing that a spike in oil prices would be “very harmful” to human health. Similarly, in a separate analysis of the data, those who were strongly “dismissive” of climate change (52%) were the most likely of any subgroup to associate a sharp spike in oil prices with a negative impact on public health.
According to Nisbet and his co-authors, this creates a challenge and an opportunity for the environmental and public health communities. Peak oil and energy prices are often talked about in terms of economic and environmental impact, but rarely as a public health concern. Nisbet argues that his findings show reason to reframe the debate.
“These findings suggest that a broad cross-section of Americans may be ready to engage in dialogue about ways to manage the health risks that experts associate with peak petroleum,” said Nisbet. “Peak petroleum may not currently be a part of the public health portfolio, but we need to start the planning process.”
The study was co-authored with Edward Maibach of George Mason University and Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 11th Hour, and Surdna Foundation.
####
Richard: your
But you are still making the same mistake. Peak oil is NOT about what is in the ground, it’s about flow rate. That has ALWAYS been the case since Hubbert.
And oil RATES are at all time highs. The EIA projects that oil RATES will continue to climb. Along with reserves.
“the appropriate EROI estimation for the THAI process is 8.9:1. ”
So its not negative, then, as you claim. I am glad that yo have finally admitted an error.
They also refer to it as the Tar sands.
They are also wrong. From Wiki:
The word “tar” is often used to describe several distinct substances which are not actually tar. Naturally occurring “tar pits” (e.g., the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles) actually contain asphalt rather than tar. Oil sand deposits (sometimes called tar sands) contain various mixtures of sand (or rock) with bitumen or heavy crude oil and not tar
So, lets recap your score:
No peak oil in 2005, by rates or by reserves. No peak oil in Russia. No premature death of the Alaska fields, in fact an extension to 2034; your failure to understand the economics of oil production;. oil at near 40,000 ft (Tiber); coal reserves; coal reserve calculations; negative ERoEI on in-situ; using ERoEI at all; references to “tar”; etc, etc, etc.
RE: Main Article
“From American University via Eurekalert, professor Matthew Nisbet demonstrates that the impact of peak petroleum on public health may be a way to unite conservatives and liberals in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy.
On the face of it, this appears to be utter nonsense. I cannot imagine that the direct effect of petroleum at peak production levels on public health will be any worse than production at those same levels, if they were below what would ultimately prove to be the peak production level.
There might be an endangerment of public health if frustrated demand were to cause social violence like we are seeing in England, but the sharp price increases associated with premature conversion to alternative energy sources would, in my view, only make matters worse. If we had a cheaper source of energy, like hydropower, we would be using it now.
I think we should realize that peak oil production probably will occur as there is no evidence that the Earth is replacing petroleum at the rate it is being used, but conversion to an alternative energy source will naturally occur only after frustrated demand has slowly forced prices up to a point that makes such a change economical.
Friends:
Please, can anybody tell me why this ‘peak oil’ nonsense keeps being raised.
My request is sincere because I think it could inform on the causes to be addressed whenever a false scare arises that has potential to escalate (as, did, e.g. Acid Rain. y2k. AGW, etc.).
Peak Oil is a classic. It has been promoted almost continuously for a century. Its enthusiasts always say Peak Oil has recently happened, is happening, or will soon happen. They are unmoved by any evidence that refutes their assertion, and there is one fact that they always ignore; i.e.
Oil reserves have been about 40 years supply for over a century, and they will always be about 40 years supply. This is because oil producers need a planning horizon of ~40 years.. So, if they don’t have ~40 years of reserves they pay people to look for more, but if they do have ~40 years supply then they don’t pay people to look for more. And people have always found more oil when paid to look for it: they still do. Therefore, oil reserves will remain at ~40 yeas supply for the foreseeable future.
Despite this, the myth of Peak Oil continues. So, I want an understanding of how and why people can strongly believe in such nonsense. Armed with that understanding, It would be possible to address other potential daft scares (e.g. Ocean Acidification) before they escalate to do the damage done by e.g. the AGW-scare.
Richard
Richard Wakefield — at 8:58 am you answered your own imaginary objections instead of the one I referenced. This is what I actually said: “Once before I asked you to cite the relevant details in your alleged “debunk” that addresses the entropy problem with the fossil fuel hypothesis, as detailed here:”
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long
You responded instead with a strawman about “kerogens.” That is an abiotic strawman, btw.
“Kerogen” is just a loose category applied to large hydrocarbons molecules, such as asphalt, tar, or bitumen. And this word “kerogen” is typically used with the intent to confuse, rather than to clarify. Life does not produce kerogen, as you well know. Life, however, eats kerogen:
I am certain that you will never cite the relevant passage that overcomes the thermodynamic problem.
Richard Courtney,
You ask why some people still pursue the myth of Peak Oil. I suppose there is a desire in some to seek apocalyptic futures for mankind. Naturally, to do this requires a confirmation bias – only give credence to evidence that supports that thesis whilst ignoring all others.
Mr Wakefield exhibits these traits, being fixated on ‘terminal declines’ of the giant oil fields, and on one occasion rebuffing an argument by claiming that Saudi estimates ‘cannot be trusted.’ Of interest though, is his economic conjecture that oil price rises cannot lead to more expensive alternatives because these rises cannot in fact occur without causing global recessions. The evidence cited is that the world was tipped into recession when oil prices peaked, came out of recession when prices crashed, and now is teetering on the edge of another.
The real reason for the 2008 recession was the result of over leveraging based on a sea of cheap credit. Oil prices went along for the ride and did not cause the recession, but were another symptom of inflated asset bubbles. The subsequent ‘recovery’ was based more on government throwing astronomical sums of money at the economy, and taking private debt onto their balance sheets. The ‘recovery’ was really an illusion, and now that the debt burden is threatening sovereign defaults and the fed has stopped easing, the recession is likely to start again. Oil will go along for the ride once again.
RE: Richard S Courtney says: (August 11, 2011 at 2:35 am)
“Peak Oil is a classic. It has been promoted almost continuously for a century. Its enthusiasts always say Peak Oil has recently happened, is happening, or will soon happen. They are unmoved by any evidence that refutes their assertion, and there is one fact that they always ignore; i.e.”
I think ‘Forever Oil’ is an urban myth, unless someone can demonstrate a plausible reason to believe that the Earth is generating petroleum at least as fast as we are using it. If we determine that oil production is continually declining, not for lack of trying, then we may have a ‘Peak Oil’ signal. It would be an early warning that a change was coming. We may not know for sure when peak oil production (like peak gold production) is reached until 10 years after it happened.
Q.E.D.* (‘Thus it is proven’) eh?
.
* quod erat demonstrandum – translates as “which was to be demonstrated”.
Absolute hubris.
And yet he returns the following day after having had his clock cleaned; have you absolutely no shame sir?
Or, is the pay that good? Maybe ‘an offer’ was made you cannot refuse …
.
One might want to check what the Major oil Companies say about replacement of oil/gas below.
ExxonMobil reports that it’s proven reserves replaced 133% of production in 2009.
Apparently they were not in peak oil in 2009.
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/exxonmobil/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1001106&newsId=20100216006302&newsLang=enx
“Forever Oil” is almost as goofy as “Peak Oil.”
The Earth doesn’t have to generate “petroleum at least as fast as we are using it” for Peak Oil to be nonsense… At least nonsense in the context of the next few centuries.
We just have to keep finding it as fast as or faster than we use it.
Spector:
At August 11, 2011 at 11:31 am you say to me:
“I think ‘Forever Oil’ is an urban myth, unless someone can demonstrate a plausible reason to believe that the Earth is generating petroleum at least as fast as we are using it.”
It seems that you really don’t get it. So, I will explain the matter for you.
For all practical purposes every resource used by humans can be considered to be infinite.
We did not exhaust the supplies of flint, antler bone, bronze, iron or anything else.
And we will not run out of oil, either.
When something is cheap nobody bothers to look for an additional source of it or an alternative to it.
When something starts to become scarce its value increases, so people look for additional sources of it and alternatives to it.
Found alternatives often prove to have advantages (which is why we are not still in the bronze age although iron is more difficult and expensive to obtain than bronze).
Developments of technolgy assist both the finding of new sources and the finding of alternatives.
In the case of oil, new technologies provide a variety of new sources; e.g. improved amounts of oil that can be obtained from existing wells, creation of wells in previously impossible places such as deep ocean, etc. And new technologies provide a variety of alternatives; e.g. by conversion of tars, gases, and coals to synthetic oil (syncrude).
Syncrude from coal could be made at competitive cost to crude oil now. But the infrastructure for crude oil supply exists and there is no shortage of crude oil. In the unlikely event that Peak Oil were reached then the infrastructure for syncrude from coal would be built.
There is sufficient coal to provide syncrude to meet demand for at least 300 years. Nobody can know what energy supply sources will be needed 300 years in the future, but they are not likely to rely on crude oil.
Peak Oil? It is a silly idea. We have real problems in this world so I see no reason to worry about imaginary ones.
Richard
“This is what I actually said: “Once before I asked you to cite the relevant details in your alleged “debunk” that addresses the entropy problem with the fossil fuel hypothesis, as detailed here:”
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long”
Which field shows definative, non-biological, abioitc source?
“Oil reserves have been about 40 years supply for over a century, and they will always be about 40 years supply. This is because oil producers need a planning horizon of ~40 years.. So, if they don’t have ~40 years of reserves they pay people to look for more, but if they do have ~40 years supply then they don’t pay people to look for more. And people have always found more oil when paid to look for it: they still do. Therefore, oil reserves will remain at ~40 yeas supply for the foreseeable future.
Despite this, the myth of Peak Oil continues. So, I want an understanding of how and why people can strongly believe in such nonsense”
You think that because you are making the same mistake as all the others. Peak oil is not about what’s in the ground, It’s not about running out like your gas tank does. It’s about how fast it can be extracted. Peak oil is when we have reached peak production, peak flow rate. That is what peak oil has ALWAYS been about, since Hubbert. Fact, the US hit peak flow rate in the 1970s’. Fact: North Sea has reached peak flow rate. Fact: Cantarell has reached peak flow rate. Fact: Alaska has reached peak flow rate. Collectively the world’s flow rate has been flat since 2005. If we never go above that, we reach peak oil in 2005. Please, please understand, peak oil is not about running out of oil. What’s in the ground is irrelevant. How many times must I state this before you all finally get it?
Alaska oil production peaked for two reasons:
1. TAPS capacity was reached.
2. The Chukchi & Beaufort OCS areas, ANWR area 1002 and other Federally controlled leasing areas, rife with the potential for Prudhoe Bay-sized discoveries have never been adequately open for exploration.
US lower 48 and OCS production peaked because ~85% of the OCS has never been adequately open for exploration and oil shales like the Green River formation have not been open for exploitation since before technological and economic conditions became favorable for their development.
Had E&P operations commenced in those areas at the time they were placed off limits and exploitation of the Green River formation commenced in 2010, US oil production would have peaked again at close to 10 million BOPD in 2018 and 2024. It would have then declined to ~7.5 million BOPD by 2040 before Green River shale oil development would have carried it to as much as 22 million BOPD by 2040.
US Oil Production without US Gov’t Interference
On the production plot above, I was using conservative estimates for the OCS and Alaska. If I used more optimistic estimates, I can come up with 8.5 million BOPD by 2050 without the Green River oil shale…
No Green River
The US has only hit “peak oil” for the roughly 40% of its oil production potential that industry has been allowed to exploit.
And, I don’t see anything that remotely resembles a global peak in oil production in or after 2005…
World Crude Oil Production 1965-2010
And, I don’t see anything that remotely resembles a global peak in oil production in or after 2005…
World Crude Oil Production 1965-2010
Still waiting for ‘engagement’ on the subject ‘energy prices’ (e.g. gasoline) Richard; I don’t suppose you’re just dodging that subject too?
Remember to make that that comparison in inflation-adjusted dollars too …
.
RE: Richard Wakefield: (August 11, 2011 at 1:21 pm)
“Peak oil is when we have reached peak production, peak flow rate.”
This is my understanding except I am assuming that we are talking about the total world production per year. If this is a self-imposed production limitation, then it only signals the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end.
As long as we hold peak production levels there is no problem. The post peak production period would begin when petroleum production starts to decline, year by year, despite our best efforts. The term ‘Ultimate Oil’ might be used to represent the quenching production level that would force prices so high that it would become necessary to start conversion to a new energy source.
“And, I don’t see anything that remotely resembles a global peak in oil production in or after 2005…”
That’s not a plateau after 2005????? Sure looks like it to me.
See also:
http://www.gulfpetrolink.net/v14n1-Husseini.pdf
http://www.aspo9.be/assets/ASPO9_Fri_29_April_Bezdek.pdf
Have a look at Figure 2.19 in this report: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=283
It’s a list of all the countries who have seen a drop in their flow rates, regardless of the cause. Doesnt matter what the cause is, reduced flow rate is not good for society.
So you admit then that peak oil, loss of flow rate, occured, regardless of the reason. Thank you. Now you understand what peak oil is. FLOW RATES!!
I have from the beginning stated quite clearly, we are NOT at geological, oil in the ground, peak. There are other causes to peak flow including the geology of the deposits, ERoEI, technological contraints, political ideology. Peaking of flow rates is ANYTHING that makes the extraction of oil perminently fall.
I have NEVER claimed there isn’t more in the ground, there is, no question, you you all have made your cases for naught. Not once has any of you addressed the flow rate question.
Now the question is, will the US ever return to its peak flow rate of the 1970’s? I think the US should do everything they can to get that oil. But return to the flow rates of the 1970’s? Not likely. If not, then the US hit peak oil in 1973. Right?
Don’t forget that coal can be converted to gasoline.
During WWII, Germany had a peak oil situation. They simply switched to a process to convert coal to gasoline. Towards the end, the German Air Force ran almost entirely on fuel originating in coal.
South Africa also converted oil to gasoline when they were cut off due to apartheid.
US has abundant supplies of coal.
Also, don’t forget oil shale here in Colorado and Wyoming. When the time is right, that will be developed.
Not to worry.
“Still waiting for ‘engagement’ on the subject ‘energy prices’ (e.g. gasoline) Richard; I don’t suppose you’re just dodging that subject too?”
I previously posted an Oil Drum article on this. But let’s look at it shall we? What was the prick that popped the bubble in 2008? People defaulting on their mortages. Why did they default? They couldn’t make the payments. Why? Their income was less than their expences. What was one of the biggest increases in people’s expences? Doubling of energy. Would the bubble have burst anyway? Yes, but it happened sooner because the energy component of their expences increased the most. Or are you saying your expences did not increase because of higher energy costs? What did you hold back spending on because of higher energy costs? Something must have given to pay for that energy.
I can tell you what I did less. Drove less, spent less on other things, which is lost revenue for the businesses I stopped going to. When everyone does that, it drops GDP growth, and that is called a recession.
Yeah; we’re paying about what we were in 1979 (adjusted for inflation) in case you didn’t look it up (WHICH you probably didn’t do, you’re going off past memory which isn’t that good).
As to your filibustering, sorry, can’t play that game with you this evening. In case you hadn’t discovered by now we’re adults here with a LOT of varied real-world experience. BS doesn’t fly here, unlike where else you’ve been ‘working your gig’ on ppl MUCH more naive to the ‘workings of the world’.
Say, just a background question, did you work the Y2K gig from the angle of gloom and doom too? Never mind responding, as I think the answer to that question is “yes”.
.
“Say, just a background question, did you work the Y2K gig from the angle of gloom and doom too? Never mind responding, as I think the answer to that question is “yes”.”
No, I wrote buisness software on PCs for a living then, and all my programs handled the change with no problems. I programmed them that way from the beginning by using a date field to hold dates instead of a text field limited to 2 chars for the date. Date fields hold a date relative to 01/01/00 as the number of days, but displayed in the proper format. So none of my programs had any problems.
Price of oil adjusted for inflation since 1946. http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Chart.asp
@ur momisugly Richard Wakefield, the world crude oil production peaked in 1979 at 65,000 BPD then declined for several years steadily, bottoming out at about 57,000 BPD. Why wasn’t that a PEAK OIL moment?
Hint: demand went down, it had nothing to do with the amount of oil in the ground.
Extrapolation: world demand since 2005 has also been flat. There has been no PEAK OIL event, ever. And there never will be, for the reasons I gave earlier.
Richard Wakefield: This is 4th time I have posted this.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1&cid=ww,&syid=2005&eyid=2011&freq=Q&unit=TBPD
World crude production is 3 million bbls/day higher in 2011, than it was in 2005. OPEC has 2 million bbls/day MORE shut in production now, than they did in 2005. That means the total current production RATE is 5 million bbls per day HIGHER than in 2005.
Please explain how a plateau exists, when the RATE is rising.