Peak Oil Agonistes: The New York Times Finally Comes Around to Where HuffPost Never Feared to Tread
This is a day of deep gloom for the McPeaksters, those preaching the gospel of "Peak Oil". The New York Times, otherwise deeply empathetic to oil patch pseudo science, this day burst one of the most entrenched of the oil patches' nuggets of disinformation, the theory of "Peak Oil".
There it was in the Op-ed section of the hallowed pages of the NYTimes, three columns wide, "Peak Oil Is A Waste of Energy," by Michael Lynch, a former director at the Center for International Studies at M.I.T.
His tone was unequivocal: "peak oil theory has been promoted by a motivated group of scientists and laymen who base their conclusions on poor analyses of data and misinterpretations of technical material." He goes on, "most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance on how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum."
After expanding on these points, he goes on to conclude that "Oil remains abundant and will likely come down closer to the historical level of $30 a barrel as new supplies come forward in the deep waters off West Africa, and Latin America, in East Africa and perhaps the Bakken oil shale fields of Montana and North Dakota".
Mr. Lynch's "revelations" in the Times are especially gratifying in that at last, one of the great misnomers of public disinformation bordering closer to brainwashing has been brought to heel.
While others in the media followed the oil industry party line, The Huffington Post braved scorn and derisiveness providing a platform for a series of posts dating back to 2006 questioning the otherwise received truths ministered to a trusting and deceived public by the hierarchy of "Peak Oil." These included:
-"Oil is Not Scarce--The Oil Industry Continues To Play Us For Fools", 05.24.06"
-"Massive Oil Find In Gulf Of Mexico Brings Gloom To 'Peak Oil' Pranksters", 09.08.06
-"Peak Oil is Snake Oil!", 06.25.07
-"Why Does Abiotic Oil Theory Ignite Peak Oil Theorists' Fulminations ??" 08.14.08
-"President Obama's Pledge to End 'The Tyranny of Oil"; 'Peak Oil' Mutating to "Peak Consumption", 04.20.09
-"The International Energy Agency Shills For OPEC, The Oil Speculators and The Peak Oil Pranksters" 08.16.09
The last post above focuses on Fatih Birol, the IEA's top economist which also serves as the starting point of Mr. Lynch's Op-ed: "Along comes Fatih Birol to insist that we'll reach the peak moment in ten years, a decade sooner than most previous predictions." Then, Mr. Lynch proceeds to decimate Mr. Birol's theory.
All this may be gloom incarnate for the "Peaksters". For the rest of us it is a breath of fresh air, and as Mr. Lynch clearly puts forward, "This is not to say that we shouldn't keep looking for other cost-effective low pollution energy sources".
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
BP just discovered another giant oil field in the Gulf of Mexico, 10,300 meters deep. Hubbert's defenders just moved the goal posts AGAIN.
BP just discovered another giant field in the Gulf of Mexica, by drilling 10,300 meters. Hubberts calculations just moved again!
Abiotic oil theory? LOL! Your credibility just flew out the window.
Why not just pray for oil and "God will provide"?
I know this is late in the comment posting, but i just had to share this-
Way down the comment list, i asked what turned out to be a rhetorical question, "I wonder who is funding Mr Lynch? Exxon or KSA?"
Well, here ya go!
from the description for Michael Lynch, President and Director of Global Petroleum Service,
Strategic Energy & Economic Research Inc. (SEER)
http://www.energyseer.com/MikeLynch.html
His resume includes: PAST PROJECTS
*Developed the long-term oil market forecast for the Gas Research Institute
*Provided assistance in scenario planning for several large oil corporations
*Analyzed the economics of N. American natural gas supply for a multi-client study
oh, and you who love the Conspiracy, check this out:
*Advised the Secretary-General of OPEC on long-term oil prices
*Analyzed world natural gas supply for a 3-volume multi-sponsor study
So Raymonds' new-found hero, Michael Lynch, has an agenda of Peak Oil denial, which seems to benefit Mr Learsys' prime adversaries: Big Oil and OPEC!
Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Population growth + 3 billion people in Asia/Asian subcontinent wanting to attain Western Lifestyles + 54 of 65 of the most important oil producing countries in irreversible oil production decline + oil industry low investment in infrastructure + 500,000 to 1,000,000 experienced oil geologists, landmen, rig hands, welders and industry executives to retire in 5-7 years + 1997 - 2007 Demand grew by 12.7 MMBPD while supply grew by 7.3 MMBPD + May 2007 Oil production peaked at 74,298,000 BPD excluding natural gas liquids and has never reached this level of oil production since + the steep decline in new giant and super giant oil field discoveries since 1980 = Peak Oil and makes Michael Lynch's predictions of $30/ Barrel seem far fetched at best.
The world recession is the only thing currently masking peak oil and much higher energy prices. Sea based production declines are rapidly putting the world economic recovery in jeopardy by the beginning of 2011. Mexico's Cantarell Oil field in the Gulf of Mexico is of particular concern. Production peaked in 2005 at 2.2 MMBPD and began 2009 at 778,000 BPD and has fallen to 604,000 BPD by the end of May 2009. North Sea production peaked in 1999 and 2000 for U.K. at 2.9 MMBPD and Norway at 3.4 MMBPD respectively. Norway's March 2009 production was down to 1.93 MMBPD and the U.K. settled at 1.4 MMBPD. I am just getting started and you can see the trend.
the bass and drum:
http://www.bassanddrum.com/
the oil drum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5715#more
what are lync's credentials exactly?
is he a petroleum gelogist?
a petroleum engineer?
someone who works in the oil patch?
is he an oil CEO?
I think half the arguments I saw in the comments are the result of disagreement about what peak oil means.
Peak oil is not the point that we run out of oil, and is only definitionally the point that we produce fewer barrels one year than the year before. It is best thought of as the point where a new barrel of oil is sufficiently more expensive than we are used to to drive a perminant increase in oil costs.
In other words, while a Saudi barrel of oil only costs $8, the price of oil is based on the cost of the most marginal well. If the most marginal well producing is a Canadian tar sands or US oil shale, and those wells cost $50 a barrel, expect oil prices to be well above that cost (because of supply chain costs). Which means you won't see gas under $3 when that occurs.
So what is it worth to us to find ways to cut oil consumption so that the cheap oil lasts longer, and once we run low on that, we will not have to use the worst of the marginal wells, so gas prices can stay (for instance) 50 cents per gallon lower?
That is the reason to invest in alternative energy, to keep gas prices down.
If you accept Oil Industry figures, that is.
http://www.thestar.com/article/447057
Here's industry insider Dr. Richard Pike. "Dr. Richard Pike has a rather sunny outlook. Oil and gas, he says confidently, will be around well into the next century.
Pike can maintain his optimism because he knows something no one else knows. He believes that a simple mathematical error – the sort made by first-year university statistics students – is causing much of our panic over a worldwide oil shortage"
nice rebuttle on oil drum
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4197
"Yes there is lots of oil but that is only one aspect of this multivariate problem. Reality is a function of geology, infrastructure, capital, labour, geopolitics etc.
The connection he makes between proven & probable reserves and carbon dioxide is important though. The peak oil problem is more to do with flow rates than the ultimately recoverable reserve (URR). The CO2 problem is more to do with URR than flow rates."
Nice rebuttal? They are using the same tired rhetoric that caused their failed prediction in 1989. And 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. Y2k. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007.
Is anyone noticing a pattern here?
heres some graphs to look at
they show oil production decline rates in
Cantarell Mexico
http://adamduda.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/cantarell.jpg?w=500&h=254
The North Sea oil fields
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52261789@N00/469898606/
and the US
http://www.dani2989.com/matiere1/us%20production%20oil%201900%202005.gif
Hey Leduck, glad you could make it. %)
Ya, your examples above are some of the best.
Indonesia is a good model for what Mexico will look like in a couple of years.
One by one....
Why does Lynch state there are 10 trillion barrels of oil in the world? Why not 20 Trillion or more???
The USGS, which most people consider optomistic, says there is between 1 trillion and 3 trillion barrels left.... this is the fight over Peak Oil. Is it going to occure by 2037, or is it occuringnow....
I've never heard b4 anyone argueing a total of 10 trillion barrels.
http://www.manbunnymatrix.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak
http://www.theoildrum.com/
http://www.peakoil.net/
At TrendLines Research, we track the top 22 recognized estimates of URR. As explained more fully in an above thread, the consensus by geologists is that there are 19-Tb of OOIP (original oil in place). Of this, only 3.8-Tb is presently economical for extraction (URR). Of this, only 1.4-Tb is logged as proven reserves.
Hi Freddy,
Thanks for showing up. %)
It is easy to miss the party with Learsys thread- they go by the number of views and it aint long before his blog gets wisked away due to apathy- especially on a big liberal news day like Ted Kennedy dying.
Anyway, what do you think of Lynch and/or his NYT piece?
I have already commented earlier so will not bother here.
Later.
obviously there's a difference between what's recoverable and what's not
when people say the world will never run out of oil..., that is technically true.
there will always be oil under our feet
because we can only currently recover 50% or less of the oil in any given field
usually, it's much less then 50%
but I'm not interested in oil we can never get to
just like i'm not interested in how long oil will last
or how long we'll be pumping it out of the ground, or mining it in tar sands
the only thing that matters to me is when it PEAKS
flow rates are what matters
production rates
not how much oil there is.
or how long it will actually last
Well, just weeks after destroying T. Boone Pickens’ credibility, the good folks in the Man-Bunny Matrix have done a number on Michael Lynch.
http://manbunnymatrix.net/
These muck-raking rabbits always make me realize how little I actually know.
Thx for the link- good writing there and very funny reporting.
Ya gotta admit the phrase "vague and irrelevant" is pretty useful, especially when dealing with the likes of Michael Lynch, and the man bunny matrix sums it up nicely.
I'm a heretic when it comes to climate change; no doubt humans have messed things up but the CO2 fixation is overblown. Likewise I see great depth in Mr Learsy's point of view, and the opinion piece in the NYT. In reality we can reasonably expect inertia to smooth whatever transition is going to occur when (not if) it does, and in no small part that's due to technology. If things begin to look critical we will be astonished at how and where our current civilization will apply new technology to keep its lifeline of abundant and unrestricted energy intact. There is no going backward, short of a cosmic impact that would be the game changer for us in the only way that will ultimately really matter; total anihilation of most surface ecosystems due to effects from a large planet killer's impact energy.
So, why do we not begin now to employ real science and engineering to combine the goals of clean energy (space based solar), enhanced environmental monitoring (long term continuous observation to refine earth models) and a platform from which to look for and prepare for these inevitable cosmic impacts. The emerging industry of space developement is poised to use technology we've had for decaces. We know what to build and how to get it there. We know it will pay eventually. Here's the risk worth taking and everyone wins, except the status quo.
You "see great depth in Mr Learsy's point of view, and the opinion piece in the NYT." ???
wow, that is providing the benefit of the doubt.
Mr Learsy neglected to point out the last sentence (and summation) of Lynchs content-free piece:
"We can’t let the false threat of disappearing oil lead the government to throw money away on harebrained renewable energy schemes or impose unnecessary and expensive conservation measures".
Then you go on and describe all the things that we can /will do to avoid consequences.
That is what we call having it both ways.
I think we have already tried that, don't you think?
%)
Ignored as well is the fact that the price of oil is pegged in dollars, and it's our multiple trillion dollar deficit which is skewing the market.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
