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.
####
@Jeff L says:
August 9, 2011 at 8:54 pm: “…Peak Oil has nothing to do with RESERVES & has everything to do with rate…” That is categorically wrong. Go look at M. King Hubbert’s original definition of the term – it is in fact the cumulative production – of the reserves (an economic term) – that define peak oil. Windy should find another term to describe his rate-constrained concept.
“Peak oil” is a red herring; it’s beside the point. The point is: what on earth does Nisbet expect the government to do that would improve the situation (other than get out of the way, which is clearly not what he has in mind)?
Richard Wakefield says:
August 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Last one tonight, Texas gas production, including shale gas:
http://static.texastribune.org/media/images/TxTrib-NaturalGas001.png
Yes, by all means, look at that chart. Hubberts peak is hit, but then something goes wrong—Flat for twenty years, then climbing, headed for an all time high. I have long said that in time, technology and price increase would warp your Hubbert curves beyond recognition. That one is a good example. Many more of those pretty little parabolas will become distorted. Most Hubbert curves are confined conventional production at a fairly constant oil price. Change those constants and the whole theory goes down the drain. If you want a good laugh, google “peak gas”. The predictions rank right up there with the ice-free arctic.
The Lakes of Titan just phoned in to ask how many dinosaurs and ferns should they have had in order to prove they are full of liquid hydrocarbons?
“The entire peak oil idea is a myth. There are VAST amounts out there – easily thousands of years of supply.”
You are still missing the point of peak oil. Peak oil is not about what’s in the ground, it’s about flow rates and ERoEI. Re reached peak flow rate (how fast the oil can be recovered) in 2005.
————————————————————————————————————–
Have you looked at the actual data? We are producing more oil for cheaper (energy wise) today then we did in 2005. Your own references say this. Why are you lying to people? The price of oil has risen since 2005 for several reasons which I will not even bother going into with your limited knowledge of economics, but needless to say the dollar has weakened internationally is the main problem and the short-term change you referenced here is because the speculation market tanked over the last week due to Q2 growth reports and of course the fated downgrading of the US credit rating.
The economy is very complex in other words. Whowouldathought? Economics is always greater then any individual product. But don’t take my word for it, let me explain and you can go do your homework poor believer in peak oil……
Peak oil means nothing anyway. Every substance we mine or extract from the ground reaches a peak at some point. To explain it further: Peak X will occur, but it will not be because we run out of said substance or start to get low. Why we will maximize output is that we will switch to other fuel sources due to cost factors. The cost of extraction rises, and so other similar substances become more competitive, so we switch to these sources or we switch perhaps to some unheard of substance in 20 years. That is the key, anything over 20 years is impossible to predict for any one individual commodity.
In the 1950’s for instance a ton of people took money out of coal stocks because it was thought that the era of coal was over. Railroads were starting to switch to diesel engines and nuclear powered energy was right around the corner. By the 1970’s, the mistake of this assumption was clear. This is why 20 years is really the outermost limit, because economics dominates everything. And the key was that in the 1970’s we moved back to coal because it was cheaper. Nuclear became much more expensive as additional fines and taxes were added at the bequest of environmentalists who labeled it dirty energy (ironic considering in 10 years I know they will be pushing for nuclear energy )…and the cost of oil rose so much (I think we all know the history of the price of oil during the 70’s or at least I hope we do.)
These two factors set us up for coal once again becoming powerful in our lives. As you can see, the dominating factors that effect the amount of a substance mined or extracted is the demand. The demand of a product is a purely economical issue. As such terms such as ERoEI (which is simply put the energy extracted for the energy put in…which is a ratio typically.) and that means nothing. But the facts say that with the ERoEI decreasing (cheaper energy wise to extract the oil) well that means the hypothetical scary peak oil story is years away. As for the reasons for the decreases in energy utilization, I have my hunches, but the opening of Canada’s sands is probably a big part of it. They are just coming online now and this source of cheap oil is just now making its way to the US.
So yes, no new discovies, but we have found a way to extract crude from tar sands, which Canada holds roughly 1.5 Saudi’s at a conservative estimate. And we all know how those conservative estimates work.
Peak oil which is something I will myself tackle as a long-term project at some point is nothing more then a term meant to cause fear and panic and perhaps some loathing everytime you drive your SUV. Its that and nothing else. I have no doubts we will reach a maximum capacity of production (as defined in peak oil.) This will happen for purely economical reasons as we switch to other forms of energy and as a society we will use more energy regardless.
There will be no energy crash due to scarsity of resources unless this is caused by forced rationing or other outside controls such as taxation. Nothing will force the economy down-hill faster then those two factors. Mark my words, politicians who add taxes to energy are crippling the economy.
I will say this because it bears repeating many many times:
Energy consumption and economic growth have always gone up and down together. This is true ever since the High Middle Ages, and if I could find relative data from before then, I am willing to bet you could also derive the same from before then too.
If you make energy more expensive, you simply put insert a mockey wrench into your economy and as such you are making a huge mistake. Lets not let the fear-mongerers such as the believers in peak oil lead us down the road of stagnation.
Richard Wakefield: your
I guess you did not read the link about Russian oil production, here is it again:
I guess you did not read that article, nor my response to you. Look at Figure 1. It shows Russian production in 2009 as GREATER than it was in Soviet times. The author, in his text, also differentiates peak oil as a function of the technological and political system. Peak oil was reached in the Soviet system, but only because they did not have the technology nor the political system to extract more.
But in absolute terms, Russia, using your source, is currently above the peak of the Soviet system.
Do you never tire of being wrong?
Richard Wakefield: your coal life calculations:
At 1-2% increase, the time to doubling is 72 to 36 years, respectively. You quote only 35.
At 2% increase per year, there would be a 4 fold increase before coal ran out, or two doublings, and not the 8 doublings you use.
With a base of 260,000 million tonnes, and using 1000 million per year, increasing at 2% per annum, coal would exhaust in about 92 years. At a 1% increase, coal would last over 130 years.
The problem is that while coal consumption is less than about 1% per annum increasee from 1980 (from 700M to 1000M), its down over the last decade. Consumption is unchanged since 1996.
Any way you look at it, there is over 100 years of coal available in the US, with current extraction technologies and usage patterns.
As oil becomes more expensive, power generation could (should?) switch to gas and nuclear (with a few percent wind/solar), and the coal will be saved as a feedstock for the petroleum industry.
While coal production could increase, its just as likely to decrease, thus last even longer.
There is no likelihood of peak oil, natural gas or coal in the near or medium term future (10-100 years), except through political action.
Peak oil – been going on about that since I was a kid.
Imagine the absolute oceans of oil there must have been under Saudi Arabia to fuel our vehicles and industry for the last 80years. All of it created by rotting organic life. There must have been so much rotting organic matter under Saudi Arabia – a compost heap the size of a mountain. Still going strong too.
Unless of course the Russians are right and Western scientists have got the basic theory wrong (again). Not sure what any of it has to do with AGW anyway since making cars that run on coal gas is old technology readily implemented. Then there are electric cars that will just require us to burn twice as much coal to make up for the oil we can’t use anymore. Certainly no reason to believe that peak oil = peak CO2.
I fully expect that as “peak oil” approaches, with the inevitable price rises or economic harm, deposits that have been placed off limits through the stroke of a pen, not nature, will suddenly open up.
Harsh? No. Ignorant? Yes.
The majority, if not all, of the oil industry professionals who have posted comments here, are skeptical of the Peak Oil concept as it is portrayed in the media, blogosphere and academia.
The volume of oil in the Earth’s crust is finite, but very large relative to volume we have discovered. And the volume that we can extract is very small (~25-50%) relative to the oil in place.
Even in the most mature region in the world, the USA, we have only thoroughly explored about 40% of our geologic potential. US production peaked in 1970 for the ~40% of our petroleum potential we are exploiting.
From 1900-2009, total US crude oil production was 199 billion barrels. Total proved reserves in 2009 were 21 billion barrels. That gives us 220 billion barrels of proved and produced oil.
220 billion barrels of oil has been produced or has been proven to be producible.
The US gov’t, the entity preventing us from exploring and exploiting most of the US oil potential, estimates that there are 116 billion barrels of conventional crude oil left to be discovered under Federal mineral leases in the US, both onshore and offshore.
The US gov’t, estimates that there are 1.8 trillion barrels of unconventional crude oil deposits that are favorable for development. The DOE estimates that the Green River formation, alone, contains 1.4 trillion (with a “t”) of recoverable oil. Even if only 15% of the Green River oil shale reserves were recovered, that’s 210 billion barrels.
At least 326 billion barrels of undiscovered oil are remaining to be exploited in areas that have never been effectively open for exploration and drilling.
220 + 326 = 546
220 billion barrels is 40% of 546 billion barrels.
And that doesn’t account for the fact that the gov’t routinely underestimates the industry’s capabilities.
The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.
The largest field in the Gulf of Mexico, Shell’s Mars Field, was discovered in 1989. Prior to this discovery, no one thought that Miocene-aged or older reservoirs existed in deepwater. Mars has produced 1 billion barrels of oil and 1.25 TCF of natural gas since coming on line in 1996. It is currently producing over 100,000 barrels of oil per day. Dozens of Mars-class fields have been discovered over the last 20 years… Most of those have only barely come on line over the last 5 years.
The most significant play in the Gulf of Mexico, the Lower Tertiary, wasn’t even a figment of anyone’s imagination in 1988. These are massive discoveries. Several fields are expected to come on line at more than 100,000 bbl/day. This play is still in its infancy.
Proved reserves represent the audited volume of hydrocarbons that are “proved” in a well-bore that can be economically recovered at the time of the audit. SEC auditing rules are very strict. Auditing rules in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other OPEC companies are, at best, opaque.
The United States converts its proved reserves to production very quickly and very efficiently. We don’t sit on proved reserves… We can’t afford to because we have to make money and if we don’t produce proved reserves, we stand to lose the leases.
If you gross up our reserve growth to account for production, our proved reserves would have been growing by an average of 2 billion barrels per year over the last 20 years… And that’s all from relatively mature areas.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to forecast that there’s another 200 billion barrels remaining to be discovered in the US and on its OCS and it’s not much of a leap of faith to think that the oil industry will find about 5-6 times that estimate, if it’s allowed to explore. It would actually take willful ignorance to believe that there’s not at least 1 trillion barrels of recoverable oil remaining to be discovered domestically.
Have we reached peak stupidity yet?
Peakoilers have an agenda. They only pretend to be concerned about oil prices and what health effects they might have, especially on the poor when they rise. Their “answer”, as always, is government intervention, to force alternative energies on us. Take ethanol. Please.
Peakoilers, we’re on to you, too.
Roger,
Although I don’t completely agree, there is a lot of sense in what you’re saying, If our leaders were strategically saving our oil reserves for future use, then that would be an incredible combination of common sense and long-term planning. Wouldn’t it be nice to have set aside large oil reserves for when the OPEC nations have used up all of theirs?
But where I disagree is we will be able to economically extract oil in the future that we can’t easy get to now. Technology will advance. Also, as the price of oil goes up, the economic feasibility of harvesting certain oil supplies goes up as well. If the price of oil is cheap, then harvesting oil shale and tar sands is prohibitive. But if oil is more expensive, then companies can afford to go after that oil.
Not Peak Oil again.
We have heard this cry from the alarmists foe over 40 years. We still find oil.
Currently the US has 5% of world reserves of oil. BUT. If the US changes their rules on extraction then the US would have 30% of world reserves. That is known reserves!
All oil companies are spending billions on exploration and finding oil in places previously not even considered to hold oil. It is also true that high oil prices brings on line fields that were thought uneconomic to exploit.
The oil price has fallen over the past week due to reduced demand.
Peak oil is a long way off and the price may not necessarally keep rising. It is possible to produce fuels from biodigested waste using algae. Increased technique will reduce cost and help drive natural oil prices down.
Peak oil is based upon the assumption that it is a finite resource, hence its name ‘fossil fuel’. The Russian scientists’ abiotic oil studies refute this notion. What if they are right, and it is continually produced by the earth’s mantle? Why have most western geologists refused to consider this? Peak oil was the ‘in’ thing back in the late 1960’s, and in 1969 the National Geographic stated the Middle East would run out around 2000. Until the USSR went bankrupt the knowledge in their scientific community was little known in the West, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t more advanced .
@- David Middleton says:
“Even in the most mature region in the world, the USA, we have only thoroughly explored about 40% of our geologic potential. ”
I guess the get-out word in that sentence is ‘thoroughly’.
The idea that 60% of the US geology is so little explored that it could contain a trillion barrels is …. outlandish.
As others have pointed out recent finds are announced with great projections of size, but rarely exceed 100,000 bbl/day – an insigificant fraction of the US consumption rate.
Peak oil happened around 2005. Oil production has varied by less than 5% since, increases have been in synthetics, alternatives and LNG.
Its not there is no more oil to be extracted, its that the cost of the infrastructure and distribution to increase production is greater than the return for increased production. It is ‘cheaper’ to use alternative soiurces like LNG because it is uneconomic to increase oil production.
Unless oil prices more than triple it is likely that it will remain uneconomic to increase oil production, and at 3x the present price oil becomes uneconomic compared with other alternatives – including wind and solar!
Alcheson says:
August 9, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Steve E. Perhaps you didn’t know, but the US has the largest reserves of fossil fuels on the planet. If the EPA and the current administration would let us start to develop them we would have enough fossil fuels available for a couple hundred years. If we continue to invest in REAL alternative energy sources, like nuclear and especially FUSION, we will have plenty of energy long before fossil fuels run out. Wind power is a joke, extremely expensive, plus it kills an enormous amount of birds and destroys the environment. Electricity prices could easily be cut in half and gas could go for under $2 a gallon if the government would get out of the way. Talk about a great boost to the economy and jobs, this would definitely be the fast track.
————
I do know the numbers for unconventional resources in the US, however they can’t be proven to produce at the same rates that conventional oil can. That is what I said in my original post.
Nuclear fusion is about 25 years away and will be an amazing help, but it’s 25 years away before the technology is there, then you have to build all the reactors and the infrastructure etc. Doesn’t happen over night you know.
It’s nice to hear that you think there is lots of oil out there that is undeveloped, however it’s all just pie in the sky until you drill a well and hit it. They’ve be saying that there lots off-shore Ireland to decades, but they’ve hardly found any. The same is probably true of the East coast of the US. Ultra deep water GOM has some potential, but with deeper wells comes more cost and so you could find oil but it would be uneconomic to extract it unless the oil price increases to $200/bbls.
Your comment about wind power killing an enormous amount of birds is laughable too, I’ve walked past many wind farms and never seen birds piling up at the base of the tower. They kill a few, but so do lorries on the motorways.
izen says:
August 10, 2011 at 7:46 am
“Unless oil prices more than triple it is likely that it will remain uneconomic to increase oil production,”
Do you have data to back this up? What starting price? The constant dollar price for oil since 1970 has averaged $48. At current prices, we are double that, and production is increasing. The actual data shows that a double is all that was needed. Of course, in any application of new technology, any development of new areas, cost comes down with time. Check out the price needed to support shale gas—it has been cut in half.
There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation… DOE
Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl… DOE
izen: your
Peak oil happened around 2005. Oil production has varied by less than 5% since, increases have been in synthetics, alternatives and LNG.
Nope. Oil production in 2005 was about 84,000,000 per day. For the last 3Q, its been 87,000,000. As I have said before, OPEC shut in production in 2005 was 3,000,000 per day. In 2010, it was 5,000,000.
It was not peak oil in 2005, if production now, is greater than 2005.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1&cid=ww,&syid=2005&eyid=2011&freq=Q&unit=TBPD
David Middleton is right, Izen. Large parts of the U.S., both off shore and in the interior remain unexplored, as this recent discovery of a giant 400 foot high waterfall right in the middle of California demonstrates.
Khwarizmi re abiotic oil.
Oil fields can be traced to the origin sedimentary rock by chemical markers in the oil.
Example 1, the Bakken deposit is in situ, it is oil that formed in the originating rock. The rock is too tight to have oil migrate into it. Oil always migrates to more porous rock.
Example 2, the Green River Shale isn’t oil, it’s kerogen. It contains biological lipids which can ONLY come from animal fats.
http://geology.com/usgs/oil-shale/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002196730099188X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146638086800456
Example 3: The Brazillian Tupi field source rock has been identified (biological) just below the deposit, it didn’t migrate too far http://www.geoexpro.com/exploration/monstersofthedeep/ and http://www.richminerals.ca/m1.html Also google: Guaratiba Formation.
There is no oil formed in Precambian rocks, which if abiotic is true should exist. Any oil found in magmatic type rocks can be shown to have migrated to those locations.
Excellent book on oil: Oil 101. I suggest you read it. He explains how oil is formed, and also refutes abiotic.
Assume for the moment that abiotic is true. It won’t solve our lack of flow, because if it was true, it’s formation rate would be very very slow rate, no where near fast enough to refill deposits.
“There are at least 1.8 trillion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil in just the Green River formation… DOE
Oil shale deposits like the Green River formation (technically a marl) are currently economic at sustained oil prices of $54/bbl, possibly as low as $35/bbl… DOE”
It’s not oil, it’s kerogen. Google: green river kerogen
“Why have most western geologists refused to consider this [abiotic oil]?”
Because it was debunked long ago. Biological/chemical markers shows all oil fields have a biological source, including all Russian fields.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to forecast that there’s another 200 billion barrels remaining to be discovered in the US ”
Assume that is true for a moment, it isn’t because most of that is not “oil” in the convensional sense. You are still making the same mistake everyone here is with regards to how much is in the ground. yes, there is LOTS still in the ground. But how fast can it be extracted? That’s the key. can extraction rates from those locations happen faster than depletion rates from other fields? Studies done say no.