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.
####
At some point we do have to plan to minimize our oil for use as fuel. This is because oil will become too important for other things such as plastic and paint. Imagine if we were unable to produce plastics, pigments, synthetic fibers, etc. Oil will at some point become too valuable to simply burn up. At that point old landfills will become plastic mines.
Shhhh … you’re giving away the plot, engaging in revealing a spoiler!
While Richard banks on statistics, graphs and select opinions to win debate I’ll bet on the XOM’s of the world and the ingenuity of the engineers and geologists and their track record of actually delivering product …
.
“Synthetic oil is still oil. Coal can be converted into hydrocarbon fuel, and we have plenty of readily-available coal.”
Yes, it is. That is not the issue. Peak oil is about flow rates and ERoEI. Coal to oil is a negative ERoEI, in that it takes more energy to make the oil from coal than you get out of it. PLus, will it be produced are sufficient quantities to supply demand?
David Middleton: you make about the same points I am trying to make. In addition to your points:
1. The US has the worlds largest coal reserves.
2. The US has amongst the largest natural gas reserves in the world.
3. North America has more oil reserves than Saudi.
4. North America has the infrastructure already in place for oil, gas and coal.
5. There are 100s of years of oil, gas and coal in North America.
Peak oil is a tough sell…..except if production is limited by legislation.
One needs to be careful of the large “charities”. Tides Foundation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund have all poured 100s of million of dollars into Canada alone, to try and stop oil sands development.
I wonder what Rockefeller Sr would think of this…..
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/u-s-foundations-against-the-oil-sands/#more-6315
Ah good old peak oil. A precautionary principle reason to dangle out in front of people to get them to do unreasonable things in the name of better safe than sorry.
So first logical fallacy I spotted. They state, in effect, that the only reason the price of oil would triple would be peak oil. Hmm, this means that all available sources of oil are being drilled and used productively and their are no cartels manipulating the price. Right? If those are not true statements than it seems that just maybe some other reason might be behind an increase in price besides the so called peak oil.
Richard: your pushing of:
Twighlight in the Desert
Matt Simmons had a consultancy that helped companies plan for peak oil, through energy investment. In other words, he was selling something. Peak oil helped him sell it.
These are some of his failed predictions (and he wanted to nuke the BP well):
“Oil Guru Matt Simmons Says BP Relief Wells WILL FAIL, Undersea Oil Covers 40% Of Gulf, BP Will Go Bankrupt, & Our Choice Is A 24-Year Leak Vs. The Nuclear Option”
Re Bakken:
“That is the low end of the estimate. The high end is 50%. The industry expects it to be closer to the low end, at about 5-15% of OOIP (original oil in place).”
Few free flowing wells rarely produce 50% of oil in place, so that cannot be correct for the Bakken shale. The USGS is consistent in their over estimations of recovery, by a large factor, in their reports on all fields. They were grossly over optimistic about Alaska, which is in terminal decline decades ahead of what the USGS claimed. Bakken’s production is about 1.8% of US demand. See: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5928
Richard Wakefield:your
Oil can’t exist at those depths, too hot.
Nope. The Tiber oil well in the GoM is at 35,000 ft, 39,000 if you count the water depth.
“On synthetic oil, chemists at a Texas university has brought the costs of coal to liquid technology down to about $40 per bbl. With several hundred years of coal in the ground in the US, its obvious we are not at peak oil. Peak conventional oil? Probably not, but its moot.”
I am not saying we are running out of oil, yet. I’m saying the flow rates cannot keep up with expected demand growth (mostly from China and India). I’m saying the key factor for ANY energy supply is ERoEI. Everyone here who are questioning peak oil are not addressing these two issues, they keep harping about how much is in the ground. That’s irrelevant. Soon as it takes more energy to extract the oil out of a deposit than we get back from the oil, we have essentually run out of oil, with lots still left in the ground. The planet is dotted with shutdowns because of ERoEI.
Thank you from one in the fossil energy business for your votes of confidence.
Peak Oil will happen some day, but there are many stones to turn over before they fail to uncover anything.
The medium-term solution for the USA is shale gas, figuring out how to produce gas by multi-stage fracs in horizontal wells has proven to be the answer to many problems the USA faces. It will put a big dent in unemployment, help other industries by lowering energy costs, and rejuvenate the auto and construction industry. Not even the luddite opposition to fracking will have much of an effect, as serious examination of the objections show that they concentrate on unique cases or occasional mistakes similar to blowouts. States where there is new drilling for gas shale should look to established states or provinces like Alberta or Saskatchewan in Canada that have mature oil industries with regulations that safeguard potable water and other aquifers to model regulation of shale gas exploitation.
Many basins are not fully explored for either oil or gas, and as noted by posters above, technology and economics will keep production going a long time yet.
Coal to liquids, how much coal is left in the US:
” It is clear that there is enough coal at current rates of production to meet anticipated needs through 2030, and probably enough for 100 years, the committee said. However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply for the next 250 years. ”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11977
Notice the phrase “current rates of production”. Soon as that increases to meet coal to liquids demand, that means the rate of production increases, which decreases the doubling period, and reduces the time to depletion. Double coal production to make oil, and there is less than 50 years of coal.
The perception of reality is more important than the reality: studies like this are about what people think, not what is. So change the perception of what is, and you get your mandate.
Psychologists in society are the politicians’ dream: you don’t have to be correct as you have to be believed. The flaw in your route to power is in your convincing, not in your facts.
So 35% of the respondents disbelieve in the AGW story in January 2010. Some other study recently suggested about 50% in mid-2011 don’t believe in it. Which is why Gore is alarmed, frustrated and angry.
These guys argue that the public is ripe for the costs and traumas of social change connected to fossil fuel restrictions because OIL is running out. Fossil fuel ENERGY is not, as we have natural gas and coal. So Gore et al can take this study as good news to reprogram our society and their wallets.
We use studies of people’s perceptions of danger to justify legislation (such as the Patriot Act) when we should be focused on determining actual danger and then advising people of the difference between perception and reality. In a same it is shameful: perhaps these guys could author another study of the American people’s perception of the threat to their livelihood by Jewish bankers to say we are “ready” to implement financial restrictions on ethnic groups?
Sorry. Been done. Didn’t work out so well.
The study of non-problems and recommendations of how to take advantage of the citizen’s mis-understanding and over-reaction is not just amoral, but immoral.
It’s been discussed here before, but may as well point it out again: the idea that highly oxidised waste organic matter can turn into highly reduced oil with massive chemical potential, merely by heating it and squashing it a bit, is absurd IMO. It can’t be replicated in a lab. The abiotic theory, in which oil is produced in the earth’s mantle from basic constituent elements seems far more plausible. And it has been replicated in lab conditions.
Another thing that puzzles me is the sheer volume of organic matter that would have been required to produce say a years worth of oil – 1 cubic mile is what we are using each year. How many cubic miles of matter are required to produce 1 cubic mile of crude, and is it reasonable to assume that this much organic material was available when the oil fields were originally laid down?
Jeff L: your
For everyone of you peak oil doubters, is there a single one of you who actually looks for & produces oil for a living?
Yep. That’s me. I used to do curve matching before computers did it for us.
I also look at numbers. The numbers say we have more oil now than in 1980. Even though the decline in gas wells can be 25% per year, we still have more gas now, than in 1980. Same with oil.
Between deep water, oil sands, oil shales, coal and shale gas, there is no imminent danger of peak oil. Except through legislation.
Richard: your
Coal to oil is a negative ERoEI, in that it takes more energy to make the oil from coal than you get out of it.
Nope. At 30 dollars per bbl, its quite affordable. The ERoEI would not be negative, if its affordable.
Simple economics.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2010/02/22/12980701-ap.html
Peak oil and the Fall of the Soviet Union: Lessons on the 20th Anniversary of the Collapse
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7878
Excellent summary of the Russian experience. Russia appears to have also hit peak in oil production.
“peak” oil, “fossil” fuel both are bigger scams than Y2K and AGW put together. People don’t even have the capacity to see the breadth of the deception.
If we don’t develop any new source of oil, if we don’t develop any new technology, if we don’t build new pipelines or refineries, peak oil is just around the corner!
Peak oil has never been a problem, and never will be. I spoke on this at Tulane Law School (New Orleans, Louisiana) this past April.
My conclusion is “. . . we see that the data simply does not support the Peak Oil theory. Furthermore, even if oil were someday to be in short supply, there are many policy options to reduce oil consumption and increase oil supply. The most critical point is to not use up our domestic reserves but keep the oil in the ground as security against that day when we will need it most.”
For the full speech with slides, see
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/speech-on-peak-oil-and-us-energy-policy.html
Richard: your
Few free flowing wells rarely produce 50% of oil in place, so that cannot be correct for the Bakken shale.
Take it up with the author. I quoted the full range. You only quoted the low end.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/bakken/newpostings/07272006_BakkenReserveEstimates.pdf
The USGS is consistent in their over estimations of recovery, by a large factor, in their reports on all fields. They were grossly over optimistic about Alaska, which is in terminal decline decades ahead of what the USGS claimed.
Nope. The field was supposed to only produce until 2011. Its been extended to 2034.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/842644601.shtml
Richard: your
I am not saying we are running out of oil, yet.
Yes you did. “Peak oil happened in 2005”. Remember?
Richard: your
Coal to liquids, how much coal is left in the US:
About 241 years, according to Wiki and BP. Not 100. Not 50.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
Richard Wakefield: your:
Excellent summary of the Russian experience. Russia appears to have also hit peak in oil production.
Nope. Soviet inefficiency should not be confused with peak oil. From 6.4 million bbls/day in 1994, to over 10 million in 2011. Production is increasing every year with western investment, and not declining. Also note that even your source shows, in Figure 1, that Russian annual production is now higher, after privatization.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1&cid=RS,&syid=1994&eyid=2011&freq=Q&unit=TBPD
Richard: your
Coal to liquids, how much coal is left in the US:
Using the EIA website, and looking at reserves vs consumption, the US has about 260 years of coal.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=2
In the last few years there have been 3 or 4 huge finds that have not yet been brought to production. In the US, we have shale oil deposits that put Saudi Arabia’s reserves to shame, but are not being produced because the govt won’t let us. In the Gulf the govt not only won’t let us drill within several hundred miles of shore, but has now stopped exploration altogether. Let’s not forget the total bans off of California and the East coast.
Those who claim that we have hit peak oil because the politicians won’t let us drill for more oil either aren’t paying attention, or are pushing something else.