free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 39. QUESTIONS FROM A READER

Saturday, August 20, 2005

39. QUESTIONS FROM A READER

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> You hold up the dieoff website like a trophy. So they
> are extreme. Why does that mean we can run from peak oil with our
> fingers in our ears singing 'la la la la...'?

It doesn't mean that. Peak oil is a serious problem, and it deserves a rigorous critical analysis. Which is what I am doing. Digging into the bowels of the problem is hardly a way of ignoring it.

> If a capitalist is
> convicted of a crime does that make capitalism wrong?

No, but it makes the capitalists who befriend the criminal and stick up for him very suspect. The moderate (non-doomer) peak oilers are in bed with fascist vermin, like William Stanton (see #29).

We need to draw a clear distinction between peak oilers who believe we have a future after peak oil (like Amory Lovins, myself etc.) and the dead-enders who don't.

> 13. SHOULD I TELL MY FRIENDS ABOUT PEAK OIL?
> Your advice is not to talk about it? Stick our heads in the sand and it
> will go away?

No, my advice is to not go hysterical and tell all your friends that they're doomed and need to start buying MREs and guns -- because some pseudo-science quack like Richard "Olduvai" Duncan said the power grid is going to go down (see #31).
I talk about peak oil all the time with people. It's a serious problem. In fact, I write about it in detail on my blog every day, so I'm hardly sticking my head in the sand. We need to talk about it -- with facts and information, not hyperbole, misinformation and fearmongering.

> The worst thing we can do is go through this unprepared.

I agree. But there is no reason to prepare for catastrophe or die-off. Careful analysis of the problem can help us understand what exactly we need to prepare for. Personally, I recommend getting rid of your car as a rational first step in preparing for peak oil.

> 6. THE PEAK OIL CONSPIRACY
> Right off the bat you make this something it is not. But you tell me,
> why don't world leaders get up there and tell us where tomorrow's oil is
> coming from?

There's no mystery about where it's going to come from. It will come from current and new reserves of crude oil, and unconventional sources like heavy oil, tar sands, NGL, ethanol, gas-to-liquids and coal liquefaction. You seem to be assuming an early peak as a cold hard fact, which it is not. It is just a hypothesis.

> 5. BEAM IT DOWN: HOW THE NEW SATELLITES CAN POWER THE WORLD
> Golly, the problem is not about powering grids, it is about
> transportation fuels.

Most transportation fuel is being wasted on frivolous lifestyle bullshit like suburbia, cars, commuting, monster traffic jams, sprawl, driving to the mall, and driving for recreation (see #27). The problem is not how to find enough oil to keep all the cars going. The problem is how to eliminate the car. That is "peak oil" -- the problem and the solution -- in a nutshell. You won't need "world leaders to get up there and tell us where tomorrow's oil is coming from" if you get off the petroleum crack pipe.

6 Comments:

At Sunday, August 21, 2005 at 10:10:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>dan:
Why does that mean we can run from peak oil with our fingers in our ears singing 'la la la la...'?

jd:
It doesn't mean that. Peak oil is a serious problem, and it deserves a rigorous critical analysis. Which is what I am doing. Digging into the bowels of the problem is hardly a way of ignoring it.

dan:
Then, why this comment on Simmon's work? quote:
"One example: Matt Simmon's assessment of the state of Saudi oil fields. Simmon's claim that SA is about to peak is certainly a linchpin of the early peak argument, but I haven't seen anything to support that claim beyond the fact that Matt Simmon's is making it."

jd:
We need to draw a clear distinction between peak oilers who believe we have a future after peak oil (like Amory Lovins, myself etc.) and the dead-enders who don't.

dan:
No we don't. This kind of stuff didn't come up on sci.energy. Mitigation is well understood. The issue is mitigation, not who is a kook.

>dan:
13. SHOULD I TELL MY FRIENDS ABOUT PEAK OIL?
Your advice is not to talk about it? Stick our heads in the sand and it will go away?

jd:
No, my advice is to not go hysterical and tell all your friends that they're doomed and need to start buying MREs and guns...I talk about peak oil all the time with people. It's a serious problem.

dan:
The title of your blog, 'Peak Oil Debunked'. And 13 warns you not to be a kook. It does not promote talking about it seriously.

>dan:
> The worst thing we can do is go through this unprepared.

jd:
I agree. But there is no reason to prepare for catastrophe or die-off. Careful analysis of the problem can help us understand what exactly we need to prepare for.

dan:
Then address Simmon's work and quit screaming 'kook'. Here is a paper on mitigation:
http://oilcrisis.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf

>dan:
6. THE PEAK OIL CONSPIRACY
Right off the bat you make this something it is not. But you tell me, why don't world leaders get up there and tell us where tomorrow's oil is coming from?

jd:
There's no mystery about where it's going to come from. It will come from current and new reserves of crude oil, and unconventional sources like heavy oil, tar sands, NGL, ethanol, gas-to-liquids and coal liquefaction. You seem to be assuming an early peak as a cold hard fact, which it is not. It is just a hypothesis.

dan:
Now you are touching on the real issue. Mitigation. It will take a great deal of money and resources to mitigate the potential 30 million barrel a day deficit we could face in twenty years. When do we start. BTW, my assumptions are well documented. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Best, Dan.

P.S. 'When do we start?' is a crucial question.

 
At Monday, August 22, 2005 at 1:07:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

dan:
Then, why this comment on Simmon's work? quote:
"One example: Matt Simmon's assessment of the state of Saudi oil fields. Simmon's claim that SA is about to peak is certainly a linchpin of the early peak argument, but I haven't seen anything to support that claim beyond the fact that Matt Simmon's is making it."


Simmons has zero first hand facts on the situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Even he admits it. The status of the Saudi oil fields is one big question mark. Maybe SA will poop out tomorrow. Maybe SA will grow for 10 more years, and then poop out. Maybe SA will keep pumping 10mbd for the next 30 years. Who knows? Nobody can say for sure because nobody has the data but the Saudis. Simmons is simply speculating.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that Saudi Arabia has only exploited its largest fields, and has a great deal more to exploit. After all, American oil didn't begin and end with Prudhoe Bay (the largest U.S. oilfield).

As I said earlier, the "early peak" is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. If you want to dispute that, then put up the hard data on the current situation of Saudi production/exploration.

The title of your blog, 'Peak Oil Debunked'. And 13 warns you not to be a kook. It does not promote talking about it seriously.

I'm talking about it seriously. I'm just keeping the misinformation and hysteria to a minimum.

Then address Simmon's work and quit screaming 'kook'.

Dan, as far as I'm concerned, kooks are kooks. I'll continue to call it as I see it.

Here is a paper on mitigation:
http://oilcrisis.com/us/NETL/OilPeaking.pdf


I'm familiar with that paper. I cited it in #27.

It will take a great deal of money and resources to mitigate the potential 30 million barrel a day deficit we could face in twenty years.

When you calculate that deficit, do you assume that American-style fuel hog culture will continue unimpeded?

When do we start.
Who's "we"? I already got rid of my car.

 
At Monday, August 22, 2005 at 9:31:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Dan Bloomquist said...

jd:
Simmons has zero first hand facts on the situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Even he admits it.

Dan:
And this comforts you? He is asking for transparency in the industry so we can properly plan for peak oil.

jd:
Simmons is simply speculating.

Dan:
That is your claim. Anyone who has bothered to read his stuff knows he has done his homework.

jd:
Personally, I subscribe to the view that Saudi Arabia has only exploited its largest fields, and has a great deal more to exploit.

Dan:
Where did you get your information? Why are they risking damage to Ghawar if there is so much 'other' oil? Here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm


jd:
As I said earlier, the "early peak" is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. If you want to dispute that, then put up the hard data on the current situation of Saudi production/exploration.

Dan:
That's the trouble. There is no transparency as far as reserves go. How does the world plan without this information?

jd:
I'm talking about it seriously. I'm just keeping the misinformation and hysteria to a minimum.

Dan:
Yet you claim we have nothing to be concerned about. You don't back it with any data. I'd call that misinformation.

jd:
Dan, as far as I'm concerned, kooks are kooks. I'll continue to call it as I see it.

Dan:
So, you refuse to address Simmon's work... And you previously wrote, 'Peak oil is a serious problem, and it deserves a rigorous critical analysis.'

jd:
I'm familiar with that paper. I cited it in #27.

Dan:
But you didn't talk about the purpose of the paper. I'll quote:

"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem....
Dealing with world oil production peaking will be extremely complex, involve literally trillions of dollars and require many years of intense effort."

jd:
When you calculate that deficit, do you assume that American-style fuel hog culture will continue unimpeded?

Dan:
And what does that comment have to do with planning?

So, when do we start?

jd:
Who's "we"? I already got rid of my car.

Dan:
Do you live in isolation from the rest of civilization?

Best, Dan.

 
At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 7:32:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

jd:
As I said earlier, the "early peak" is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. If you want to dispute that, then put up the hard data on the current situation of Saudi production/exploration.
...
Have you seen Peter Maass' article in the NYT Mag Aug. 21? He talks about his visit to SA in June. He states that at the end of his visit he had the opportunity to talk with Sadad al-Husseini, a retired Aramco top executive for exploration and production. What Husseini has to say is the best info I have found yet on the true state of Saudi reserves in general and pushing the Gharwar field in particular. The questions and answers give us some parameters. It does sound as though peak time is close at hand.

I agree that this site is useful, but JD, you seem to be on a mission to taint all peak-oilers as out of touch w reality. Most are simply trying to do the math, like you. Point is, should oil peak early or much later, there is no national leadership on the horizon to start making the liquid fuel transition. It will not be comfortable, esp. here in the Northeast in the winter.

 
At Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 10:32:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Dan Bloomquist said...

I had posted the NYTimes and the interview with Terry Gross earlier on sci.enegry and others.

This blog will fade into the kook realm before long.

Best, Dan.

 
At Monday, June 18, 2007 at 11:33:00 AM PDT, Blogger Caseygrl said...

Dan, how can you say that JD is a kook, which he isn't btw? JD isn't denying po will happen, he only tries to refute the doomerism that "we're all going to die!" that the chicken littles kunstler, simmons, campbell, savinar project. I do agree that mitigation needs to happen, but also seperating fact from doomer hype also needs to happen. Plus, there are only a few Peak Oilers that are actually geology majors. Namely LaHerre (not sure of the spelling), possibly Campbell. Simmons doesn't have a background in geology, to my knowledge. Neither does Savinar or Kuntsler. SO why should I trust Simmons, Savinar or Kuntsler when they talk about Peak Oil? I'm not sure what JD's major is, but so far from reading his blogs, he seems to be trying to give both sides of the argument and why one is better then the other. I don't see Simmons or Kunstler doing that. All I read from them is that "We're all going to die and thats final"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home