Whatever happened to “peak oil”?

[ALB]

Once again the doomsayers are being proved wrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22850607

This recalls the dire predictions made by the so-called Club of Rome in their 1972 report Limits to Growth all of which proved to be wrong:

Quote:

“Limits to Growth” said total global oil reserves amounted to 550 billion barrels. “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade,” said President Jimmy Carter shortly afterwards. Sure enough, between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion barrels of oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990 unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels—not counting the tar shales, of which a single deposit in Alberta contains more than 550 billion barrels.

The Club of Rome made similarly wrong predictions about natural gas, silver, tin, uranium, aluminium, copper, lead and zinc. In every case, it said finite reserves of these minerals were approaching exhaustion and prices would rise steeply. In every case except tin, known reserves have actually grown since the Club's report; in some cases they have quadrupled.

http://www.economist.com/node/455855

Now, apparently, they are at it again, postponing the end of the world from 1990 till 2050.

Time and time again Malthus and his latter-day followers have been proved wrong. Despite what they say, the world does have enough resources to feed, clothe and shelter the present human population and more. It is not lack of resources that is preventing this, but the misuse of resources under capitalism and its production for profit and built-in drive to accumulate capital rather than satisfy people's needs.

Here's how we responded at the time to such views:

No. 792 August 1970*

[jondwhite]

Some natural resources are exhaustible (and the market is a terrible way of managing this) but human ingenuity is not.http://www.bristol247.com/2013/01/31/deflation-of-helium-reserves-spell-trouble-for-science-technology-and-party-balloons-86327/Surely peak oil can conceptually exist even if it is hard to predict a time?

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

Once again the doomsayers are being proved wrong:

The "doomsayers" may have been wrong in 1972 and quite possibly now but eventually they will be proved right.  By definition non-renewable resources are finite and unless genuine renewable substitutes can be found for increasingly hard to extract fossil fuels and diminishing key minerals then even socialism, should it be established by, say, 2050, will have serious difficulty providing enough for a world population estimated to have reached 9 billion by then.The bottom line is that, instead of simply exhibiting smug attitudes towards those who raise concerns, we should all be working more earnestly than ever for a sane way of organising our affairs on the planet we mutually inhabit.  For we have nowhere else to go and time is running out. 

[ALB]

But these people are not on our side. Their wrong predictions are re-inforcing the myth used to justify capitalism that socialism is not possible because there will always be scarcity and that in fact it's getting worse.I don't think the doomsaying, scarce-mongering approach is the best anyway. I once heard a debate between Tony Benn and a Green Party representative (I can't remember who) who was arguing that there'd be economic and ecological collapse within 40 years (that was 20 years ago). Benn made the valid point (in my opinion) that people don't make revolutions out of fear but out of hope. We should hold out the hope of the rational use of modern technology. I shan't be around in 2050 but by then I hope there'll at least be a human on Mars.

[Anonymous]

ALB wrote:

I shan't be around in 2050 but by then I hope there'll at least be a human on Mars.

I know why you won't be around in 2050; you'll be the one on Mars!   

[jondwhite]

Couldn't we have a society on earth at least as modern as the existing one without oil etc.?

[ALB]

My point was not to defend the use of oil to generate electricity but to question the accuracy of claims made by the doomsayers about oil and other materials running out. What oil there is would be more rationally used to make plastics, etc rather than being burned to raise heat to turn steam turbines. So, yes, it is possible to imagine a modern society that could exist without burning oil. I'm not sure, though, that at the moment it could exist without mainly using nuclear power instead while renewable sources of energy were developed and perfected. And of course it would have to be on the basis of socialism not capitalism. After all, look at the obstacles that have just been placed in the way of wind farms and the Severn tidal barrage, the two obvious main types of renewable alternative sources in this part of the world.

[ralfy]

Shale is needed because crude oil production peaked. The fact that shale is now needed proves peak oil.Shale, together with other unconventional oil and gas sources, has lower energy returns and steeper decline curves. That's why according to the IEA the best-case scenario is a 9-pct increase in energy produced from all oil and gas sources worldwide for the next two decades. But that assumes that crude oil production is maximized.To make matters worse, if we look at oil production per capita, which is more logical because what is produced is used by a growing global population with growing resource demands (due to a larger middle class), then the bad news is that oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.In many ways, some of the "dire predictions" have started, with oil prices tripling even given unconventional oil production, food prices remaining high, and both leading to social unrest worldwide.In order to deal with this predicament plus global warming, the IEA argues in its 2010 report that governments must work together and coordinate to lower oil demand, use renewable energy, and force oil companies to maximize productions, even if it means lower profits.Given the fact that countries have not done this the past few decades and has not prepared for peak oil and global warming due to the need for "business as usual" does not make me confident of the future.One more thing: it is illogical to argue that "these people" are not on "our side." If any, they put to question the presence of a global capitalist system that requires more oil needed for more production and consumption of goods in order to back increasing credit and guarantee higher profits and continued economic growth, if not show that such a system is not sustainable.That is why it is no wonder that private corporations are backing denial regarding not only peak oil but even global warming.

[ALB]

I can see the point you are making, but the claim was that oil production as such, whether "conventional" or not, would begin to decline by a near date. It hasn't and does not seem likely to. As you point out, as the easier accessible supplies are exhausted the price of oil rises, making less accessible sources profitable. Eventually it will become profitable to extract oil from the Arctic ocean, but oil won't run out.It is in fact not possible for the world to adopt a rational energy policy because shortish-term profit considerations drive what competing governments and corporations do. It is illogical to burn oil to produce electricity as this does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but this is unlikely to stop under capitalism until a cheaper source of fuel becomes available (probably nuclear, as the price of oil and gas will have to rise a lot higher before non-renewable energy becomes profitable on a wide scale). This is why what the International Energy Agency urges is not likely to happen, at least only as too little, too late:

ralfy wrote:

In order to deal with this predicament plus global warming, the IEA argues in its 2010 report that governments must work together and coordinate to lower oil demand, use renewable energy, and force oil companies to maximize productions, even if it means lower profits.

Force capitalist corporations to make lower profits ! That's not going to happen.

ralfy wrote:

Given the fact that countries have not done this the past few decades and has not prepared for peak oil and global warming due to the need for "business as usual" does not make me confident of the future.

You could be right and, if you are, the only way out is a world socialist society in which the Earth's resources have become the common heritage of all humanity. That's the only framework within which a rational (world) energy policy can be worked out and applied. See this article from the Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1247-july-2008/too-little-too-late

[Anonymous]

ralfy wrote:

Shale is needed because crude oil production peaked. The fact that shale is now needed proves peak oil.

Evidence?

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

I can see the point you are making, but the claim was that oil production as such, whether "conventional" or not, would begin to decline by a near date. It hasn't and does not seem likely to. As you point out, as the easier accessible supplies are exhausted the price of oil rises, making less accessible sources profitable. Eventually it will become profitable to extract oil from the Arctic ocean, but oil won't run out.

The argument that "It hasn't and does not seem likely to" makes no sense at all, unless you are claiming that oil is an infinite resource.Some more points you should consider:Oil discoveries peaked in 1964.U.S. oil production peaked in 1970.Two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or have passed peak.Oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.The last point is critical because oil produced serves not just a growing population, but one with a growing middle class.Finally, peak oil is not about oil "running out," because there will always be billions of barrels of oil and gas underground. The catch is energy return coupled with production rate. This point is very important, and you must understand it before we continue this discussion.

Quote:

It is in fact not possible for the world to adopt a rational energy policy because shortish-term profit considerations drive what competing governments and corporations do.

Exactly, which is why you should be more concerned about peak oil and not dismiss it in a frivolous manner.

Quote:

It is illogical to burn oil to produce electricity as this does release CO2 into the atmosphere, but this is unlikely to stop under capitalism until a cheaper source of fuel becomes available (probably nuclear, as the price of oil and gas will have to rise a lot higher before non-renewable energy becomes profitable on a wide scale).

Don't be fooled by those who look at dollar values. Instead, look at energy returns. If other sources of energy do not provide the energy returns needed to keep the current global capitalist system going, then it is useless to imagine that these sources will allow the same system to continue.In short, no matter how profitable a source of energy becomes, it will not allow the capitalist system that it feeds to be sustainable unless it provides high energy returns, equivalent to 10 or better.What does this translate to in terms of resources rather than dollars? We will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years just to maintain economic growth. To switch to nuclear and other sources, we will need even more than that.

Quote:

This is why what the International Energy Agency urges is not likely to happen, at least only as too little, too late.

Exactly! And all the more reason to argue that claims that we won't "run out" of oil or that we can easily switch to other sources of energy are wrong.

Quote:

Force capitalist corporations to make lower profits ! That's not going to happen.

Exactly! So don't count on capitalists to maximize production so that oil won't "run out" or that oil production won't peak for a long time.

Quote:

You could be right and, if you are, the only way out is a world socialist society in which the Earth's resources have become the common heritage of all humanity. That's the only framework within which a rational (world) energy policy can be worked out and applied. See this article from the Socialist Standard: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1247-july-2008/too-little-too-late

Excellent point! To do that, we cannot assume that oil "won't run out" or that capitalists will ensure that nuclear or other sources of energy will allow for "business as usual."

[ralfy]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Evidence?

Crude oil production peaked in 2005, according to the IEA:http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.htmland featured here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NUSee also this reference to the BP 2010 review:http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumptionAnd the second chart from the EIA shared here:http://crudeoilpeak.info/abc-tv-interview-with-richard-heinberg-on-peak-oil-and-the-end-of-growthFinally, for a list of multiple reports from different sources, consider:https://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Don't be fooled by those who look at dollar values. Instead, look at energy returns. If other sources of energy do not provide the energy returns needed to keep the current global capitalist system going, then it is useless to imagine that these sources will allow the same system to continue.In short, no matter how profitable a source of energy becomes, it will not allow the capitalist system that it feeds to be sustainable unless it provides high energy returns, equivalent to 10 or better.

This discussion echos the one in this debate:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/poles-apart-capitalism-or-socialism-planet-heatsand which puts us in the invidious position of seeming to say that capitalism is not as bad as some say it is ! In this debate the speaker for Arctic Voice is saying that capitalism is doomed because it won't be able to deal with global warming while the SP speaker is saying maybe it can, not that that makes capitalism any less undesirable and socialism any less necessary.Here you are saying (or seem to be saying) that capitalism's appetite for oil will mean that it will eventually breakdown because it will exhaust oil reserves and won't be able to find an efficient alternative. I'm arguing that maybe it can find an alternative (or even enough oil) and that it won't collapse for this reason.But whichever of us is right, socialism is still the answer. If you are right, then it is only within a socialist world that the effects of peak oil/global warming could be mitigated. In fact it would make socialism and campaigning for it even more urgent as, if capitalism were to collapse before there was a majority in favour of socialism, all the dystopian films about the collapse of civilisation could turn out to be realistic.

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

This discussion echos the one in this debate:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/poles-apart-capitalism-or-socialism-planet-heatsand which puts us in the invidious position of seeming to say that capitalism is not as bad as some say it is ! In this debate the speaker for Arctic Voice is saying that capitalism is doomed because it won't be able to deal with global warming while the SP speaker is saying maybe it can, not that that makes capitalism any less undesirable and socialism any less necessary.Here you are saying (or seem to be saying) that capitalism's appetite for oil will mean that it will eventually breakdown because it will exhaust oil reserves and won't be able to find an efficient alternative. I'm arguing that maybe it can find an alternative (or even enough oil) and that it won't collapse for this reason.But whichever of us is right, socialism is still the answer. If you are right, then it is only within a socialist world that the effects of peak oil/global warming could be mitigated. In fact it would make socialism and campaigning for it even more urgent as, if capitalism were to collapse before there was a majority in favour of socialism, all the dystopian films about the collapse of civilisation could turn out to be realistic.

I believe that the problem is a combination of predicaments: peak oil, debt-ridden economic crisis, and global warming coupled with environmental damage. Wars and epidemics which will be driven by these predicaments will make things worse.Theroetically, it is possible tor replace fossil fuels but it will take decades:http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11and will involve issues such as an energy trap:http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/not to mention extensive cooperation and coordination between governments, as mentioned by the IEA. But as pointed out earlier, that won't take place.In which case, we should expect no alternatives to allow for "business as usual" until it is too late.In addition, we should not expect global warming to be mitigated, either, for similar reasons.Finally, in order to see socialism as "the answer," we need to understand the points that I've raised concerning peak oil and argue that they are true. Otherwise, one will end up ironically repeating what capitalists say: that global warming is either a hoax or a non-issue because it will be mitigated easily, that peak oil is a hoax because there is lots of oil still available or a non-issue because in case there isn't enough oil we can find alternatives easily, and that anyone who insists otherwise is nothing more than a doomsayer.  

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Finally, in order to see socialism as "the answer," we need to understand the points that I've raised concerning peak oil and argue that they are true. Otherwise, one will end up ironically repeating what capitalists say: that global warming is either a hoax or a non-issue because it will be mitigated easily, that peak oil is a hoax because there is lots of oil still available or a non-issue because in case there isn't enough oil we can find alternatives easily, and that anyone who insists otherwise is nothing more than a doomsayer.

Yes, I agree that is the danger/dilemma but perhaps there's a middle way. Global warming is neither a hoax nor a non-issue (not that all capitalists do argue this; it's that, because of profit considerations and vested interests, they can't agree on what to do and so are not doing much effective about it). Personally, I'm not so convinced about peak oil, but others here might disagree.Anyway, supposing that you are right about peak oil, what do you see as "the answer"?

[Author]

Posts