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.
####
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nisbet: “This could present a gateway to engagement with conservatives on energy policy.”
So, just as with the CAGW bs, it’s about “engagement” then, not about what is true or real.
“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.
What about the health risks associated with forcing energy costs up based on myths and fabrications? Climate hysterics never seemed to consider that.
Now they want a “dialogue”?
Is it perhaps, just maybe, because they are LOSING, and they know it, so are, once again trying a different tack?
“Peak oil” is just one more in a long line of red herring arguments, meant to raise fear, not throw light.
“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.”
Classic example of “run it up the flagpole and see who salutes”. If you can’t people concerned about fossil fuel consumption for environmental reasons try “reframing” it as public health concern. When will these chuckleheads figure out it’s a cost concern to the majority and little else.
Peak oil is going to happen. The Obama administration is going to help it happen, too, by restricting development of domestic oil supplies,
Peak oil: Myth
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm
Peak oil fear-mongering is used to forces up prices and also to make cars available only for the elite and bring in this eco-tyranny
“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.
Gee, I wonder where he stands?
MikeEE
If anyone is interested, the thorium fuel cycle and thorium recators was covered in some detail in a thread in Bishop Hill some time ago.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/13/why-is-beddington-against-thorium.html
There is nothing wrong with the concept of peak oil but it is likely 200 years away. Otherwise why can I buy 1.0 litres of gas for the same price as 0.341 litres of bottled water? Where is the peak water problem? In Canada almost 50% of the price of gas is tax. This commodity is solely responsible for the amazingly high standard of living in western countries and is so cheap right now. Even at $2.00/ltr ($6.00/gal) people will drive gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs.
I am waiting patiently for the tipping point of peak taxes.
Matthew Nisbet has his other problems, specifically regarding his ties to the smear of skeptic scientists and an unsupportable assertion that the media has given such skeptics ‘too much balance’. Nature magazine regurgitated his assertion in April, as I detailed in my article, ” ‘Media Too Fair to Climate Skeptics’, say reporters who’ve been unfair to skeptics” http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/06/02/media-too-fair-to-climate-skeptics-say-reporters-whove-been-unfair-to-skeptics/
Discussions on “Peak Oil” always seem to miss some important points.
First, when ‘they’ say that the Peak in oil production has passed, they really mean the production of sweet, easily recoverable crude oil that has low production costs. This is actually a tiny part of the available hydrocarbon which are, make no mistake about it, HUGE.
For a start, the recovery of the sweet, easily recoverable crude might only be 20% or 30% of the total resource in the reservoir. More of the balance can be recovered using secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, which are higher cost, but there is still plenty of oil on those reservoirs. I won’t mention the observation that some oil reservoirs seem to be replenishing as well.
Then there are the massive resources of tar sands, oil shales, brown coals, peat, and other coals which contain just massive quantities of crude. Yes. The costs of extraction are higher, particularly capex, and there are environmental impacts. But the resources are there, even in the US. And on top of all that, there are the natural gas reserves, conventional, coal seam gas, and more recently shale gas.
The major problem faced by these tar sand, oil shale and coal to oil conversion projects is that they are so capex intensive that only the major oil companies have the capacity to develop them off their balance sheets. Financiers are very leery of funding such projects owned by smaller corporate sponsors, remembering the last time that such projects could be financed, the oil price soon enough fell to as low as $10 per barrel, and the projects failed financially.
There is a very simple solution, however, if the US wants to assure energy security at a reasonable oil price. All it has to do is to guarantee a minimum oil price of, say, US$60 per barrel for 20 years production for each project that meets specific criteria. That guarantee would greatly simplify the funding of the alternative projects, and many projects could proceed. The only downside (from certain viewpoints anyhow) is that abundant supply would probably result in reduced oil prices. Which might not appeal to certain interests.
“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.”
OH COME ON. Is there not one single other reason why oil prices would rise? How about maybe the outright limitation of supplies by governments. How about the blockade of supplies from other countries?
Nah, manual reductions in supply never raised prices. (See Nintendo, Play Station, Apple, Xbox,…)
Mor Electric Heating (@morelectricheat) says:
August 9, 2011 at 9:55 am
I don’t get the point of your post. You seem to be suggesting that peak oil has already occurred and then provide a link that shows total oil production increasing from 80 mb/day in 2010 to almost 100 mb/day in 2035.
And any ClimateAudit ‘lifers’ like myself and Willis E may well remeber this thread on CA back in 2006 when we discused a number of aspects of nucear technology including the thorium fuel cycle and the myth that is fusion power.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/08/03/what-is-the-evidence-against-warmer-mwp/
Do a search for KevinUK and Allan.
In 1980, global proved oil reserves were equal to ~20 years of global consumption at the 1980 rate… In 2010, global proved oil reserves are equal to ~43 years of global consumption at the current rate of consumption… Global Reserves & Consumption
Washington vs. Energy Security
US Oil Production With Policy Missteps
Pres. Obama & “Boot” Salazar also took oil shale leases off the table In 2009. The USGS estimates that the Green River Oil Shales, alone, have 8 to 12 trillion barrels of oil in place… 1.4 trillion of which is likely to be recoverable.
US Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil & Gas
If I take 80 billion bbl of the undiscovered resources on the map above and assume that they were developed at the time they were placed off limits and add in 120 billion barrels of oil shale recovered from 2022 to 2100, this is what US oil production would look like…
US Oil Production Without Policy Missteps
Bear in mind that I am using less than the US Gov’t estimate (116 billion bbl) of undiscovered conventional oil resources. Past history tells us that the oil industry routinely finds and produces 4-6 times as much oil as the gov’t thinks we will find and produce.
Am I being overly optimistic in projecting more than 15 million barrels per day (BOPD) of production from oil shales by 2100?
The hydrocarbon characteristics of the the oil shales of the Green River formation in the Piceance Basin
are superior to those of the Athabasca oil sands. The hydrocarbon areal density is about 13 times that of the Athabasca deposits.
Canada is currently producing ~ 1 million barrels of oil per day from Athabasca oil sand deposits. They expect to increase that to 2 million barrels per day over the next decade. The Green River oil shale deposits in the Piceance basin could easily outperform Athabasca within a decade and with a much smaller environmental footprint.
Athabasca oil sands are currently economically competitive with the OPEC basket. Green River formation oil shales are superior, by a wide margin, to Athabasca oil sands. The Green River oil shales would yield 100,000 bbl of 38° API sweet refinery feed per 160,000 tons of ore & overburden. Athabasca oil sands yield 100,000 bbl of 34° sweet refinery feed per 430,000 tons of ore & overburden. The unconventional oil is actually very light and very sweet; the OPEC Basket is actually heavier (32.7° API).
Athabasca is economically competitive now. Green River could be economically competitive now. Peak oil my [censored]!
The only obstacles to Us energy security are environmental
terroristsactivists… and the US government.We must stop this squabling: peak oil; no peak oil. Let the market decide with producers presenting the most efficient fuel that can be developed RESPONSIBLY at the present time. That means we are all conservationists and anti-polluters in a reasonable fashion. (The logic is similar to that of the light bulb. Those bulbs that are more efficient and at least equally as SAFE will trounce any competitor given the free flow of information.) Stop the fantasy history and non-sense future projections — sounds like Malthusians. Stay with the practical present and let those with knowledge and experience work out our future. Since the U.S. has abundance in almost every category, if not prevented by the “new-rich statists”, our future prosperity and affluence is assured. We all had better get to work preventing all those “new-rich statists” from preventing us.
I guess that eliminates almost all government elites (politicians and bureaucrats) and government-funded academics as decision-makers. They are attempting to become the robber barons of the late 19th century; many, like Gore (and Obama?), have succeeded so far and have become psychotic (outside — way, way, way outside — of reality) in their quest for emperordom.
Peak oil in the US may occur in the US only if the likes of the current administration prevent production from all the promising sources in Alaska. offshore,etc etc Production will be down in the US this year because the administration has illegaly prevented production from the Gulf. It is selfilling prophesy.
Some are trying to confuse the facts by calling production from the Alberta as synthetic oil.
There is massive reserves there and it is not synthetic oil, but it is synthetic crude since it needs to be processed before shipping to the refineries via pipeline.
The following from Garfield summarizes the situation perfectly:
“A lot of folks can’t understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.
Well, there’s a very simple answer.
A lot of folks can’t understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.
Well, there’s a very simple answer.
Nobody bothered to check the oil.
We just didn’t know we were getting low.
The reason for that is purely geographical.
Our OIL is located in:
ALASKA
California
Coastal Florida
Coastal Louisiana
Coastal Alabama
Coastal Mississippi
Coastal Texas
North Dakota
Wyoming
Colorado
Kansas
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
And
Texas
And
Our dipsticks are located in DC
Any Questions? NO? Didn’t think so.”
This is utterly absurd. Any ‘dramatic spike’ is caused by speculators.
It can be shown factually that the recent wild moves in oil were speculative, not tied to supply and demand. Even the Saudis, who obviously have a vested interest in keeping the price high, have complained about speculation making the market crazy.
As for public health, I have no idea what Nisbet is getting at, and can’t imagine either liberals or conservatives getting excited about this alleged connection. You could get one group or the other excited after a couple years of concentrated propaganda, but the connection is not obvious to anyone now.
Lex says:
August 9, 2011 at 10:31 am
Peak oil: Myth
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm
Lex that link is mostly rubbish. Take, for example, the Eugene Island discovery and the fact that a reservoir dropped from 15,000 to 4,000 and then later rebounded to 13,000 (barrels per day). They discovered a previously unknown reservoir that was connected to the one they had found. As production continued, somehow the second reservoir connected itself to the first.
This is not an example of why peak oil is a scam, but rather an example of the unknowns of oil exploration. They got lucky. If somehow a fault had cut the reservoir in half (reducing instead of expanding it) would this be an example of how peak oil is not a scam?
Peak oil is true in the sense that conventional oil wells are being depleted. This is not rocket science. The development of non-traditional sources is more than covering this depletion. As these new sources are expanded their cost of production will go down, thereby putting downward pressure on oil prices. “Mondo” summarizes non-conventional oil above quite nicely.
It’s a petty peak oil propaganda has been so much more effective than the AGW/Climate Change propaganda.
“an exploration well which finally reached a staggering world record depth of 40,230 feet”
Oil can’t exist at those depths, too hot. Oil exists only in a small window of depth. Google: oil window. To get an understanding of Russian and Saudi oil production you should read Twighlight in the Desert.
This entire study is a POLL. It is not about *any* reality at — only about people’s opinions about what might happen in the future. Lots of people believe the price of oil will go very high in the future, and that if the price of oil does go very high, then people’s health may suffer. Since this is a multi-choice poll (very likely, somewhat likely, etc) we have no insight into why people might think this. But it seems to me that people feel that if the public can’t afford to drive their cars or heat there houses, that there would be a negative effect on their health — I’d have to agree with them. Of course this assumes that all energy prices have risen, not just oil.
It all seems way too hypothetical to me — and I doubt that the study will get any political traction — but one never knows with politics. The conservatives I know are unlikely to be ‘scared’ into action by a threat so nebulous.
“The USGS estimates that the Green River Oil Shales, alone, have 8 to 12 trillion barrels of oil in place… 1.4 trillion of which is likely to be recoverable”
There is no oil in the Green River Formation, it’s kerogen. The precursor of oil. It has to be cooked into oil, that reduces the ERoEI. No one even knows if it can be processed at a positive ERoEI. It also cannot be well tapped, it has to be mined. That makes the flow rate very very low. One possible solution to cook the kerogen into oil is to nuke the deposit. There is a lot of hype about this field, and that field. But it is just that, hype. Each field’s geology has to be looked at. Blanket statements are worthless without the specifics on the deposit.
Richard; valiant efforts, extrapolations based on yesterdays analysis and using technologies currently in practice do not map well into the future.
“Past performance is no guarantee of future results [either way, up or down]” the most common caveat in finance is applicable here as well.
Good luck in your ‘crusade’/ your revival, but a number of us will not be joining you under that tent …
.
HaroldW said:
“Persons/companies who anticipate such demand shifts, and are leaders in said substitutes, do well. What about this path requires government intervention? Why is this a political issue?”
It’s all about control. They cannot imagine that a free market economy can make multitudinous correct decisions on its ow,. The Soviet Union failed in large part because they could not price adjust 34,000,000 items a day and manage the 160,000 regulations that accompanied just altering the price of mink pelts.
Ignoring this, they think government knows how to do business. Of course, government is incapable for the simple fact that they are using other people’s money and thus have no reason to watch the bottom line. It’s that simple.
Governments cannot create wealth.
“For a start, the recovery of the sweet, easily recoverable crude might only be 20% or 30% of the total resource in the reservoir. More of the balance can be recovered using secondary and tertiary recovery techniques, which are higher cost, but there is still plenty of oil on those reservoirs. I won’t mention the observation that some oil reservoirs seem to be replenishing as well. ”
Most wells produce on average 40% of oil in place, rarely any more, some a lot less. Some fields produce less than 20% of oil in place. It all has to do with the geology and other factors. The great super giant oil fields are all in tertiary recovery now, this includes the North Sea (in terminal decline), Ghawar (near terminal decline) and Cantarell (in severe terminal decline, 2.3mb/day at peak, now less than 450,000b/day).
Abiotic oil has long been debunked, fields do not replenish themselves.
Hope this post doesn’t sound too harsh, but there are clearly people posting on here based on emotion, not data & that’s not good science.
For everyone of you peak oil doubters, is there a single one of you who actually looks for & produces oil for a living? How has ever looked at a well decline curve ? a field decline curve? a basin decline curve? From your comments, I highly doubt it.
This is what I do for a living & if you think satisfying world oil demand on a daily basis is an easy task, I invite you to come out & give it a try yourself. You will quickly learn how hard it is find reserves that will flow at a rate that make a difference. You will learn about well decline curves, field decline curves, basin decline curve, country decline curves. You will start doing the math & realize that we will see a world wide peak in production rate because there is no way we can possibly keep up with these declines. It’s not a matter of if, just a question of when.
Let me put this in perspective. The world uses just about 80 million barrels of oil per day (MMBOPD). Using a conservative estimate, average natural decline is no less than 5% per year. That’s 4 MMBOPD that needs to be replaced every year – just to keep production flat, let alone satisfy any increase in demand. The biggest field ever found in America , Prudhoe Bay, produced 2 MMBO at it’s peak. So, just to keep production flat, the world has to bring on the equivalent of 2 Prudhoe Bay’s every year. If you think this is easy, come on out & see how hard it is to find that kind of production.
There is a reason everyone is chasing resource plays now , which are low recovery & have high decline – it’s because most all the higher quality reserves have been found. If there were abundant higher quality reserves, industry would be pursuing them. Richard Wakefield has it right – it’s not about reserves, it’s about rate & we are not developing enough high flow rate reserves to satisfy daily demand. Remember that Peak Oil is peak oil production rate , not peak reserves & the two are two very different animals.
If you choose not to believe it, it really doesn’t matter. What will be , will be. Unlike AGW, there are no punitive measures that people are pushing trying to “prevent” something – ie, there is no impact on you, regardless of what you choose to believe. However, I have to say, to spout off with out any knowledge of the DATA makes you look pretty much as ignorant as the AGWers that do the same thing for their pet cause (harsh, I know) . Good science is about data, not political thoughts & what feels good to you.