I like to think that I’m a pretty dab hand at the English language too. I have written much in my life and have even been paid to edit and enhance the writings of others. And let me say that brevity is the greatest achievement in technical writing. But why would anyone want to read about me, about all that stuff, at great length, especially in a ‘book review’ on Peak Oil I was meant to be writing? Beats me.

I should point out that this was not submitted to OLO as a book review. That was OLO's label. After all, how can someone who has been involved in writing a book review it? My original title for the essay was "Translating Peeking at Peak Oil". I believe it would be of interest to those who have followed the Peak Oil issue for some time and hopefully it will spread awareness of the existence of the book (which is the most data-rich and broad analysis of the issue of oil depletion yet published).

Michael Lardelli's article doesn't say anything about the theoretical basis for peak oil, such as it is, although they have previously been aired on this site and debunked. If peak oil is about anything its about the switch from conventional, easy-lift, cheap oil to unconventional oil, and OPEC's failure to invest in production for entirely understandable reasons. That's where the bulk of the peak oil theorists are going, at any rate, and they have said so on this site..

So until now I was under the impressions Lardelli was a lone eccentric, becoming lonelier, but I see he has a mentor.. well, it can't be helped I suppose..

Apologies Michael. One of my mottos is 'never assume'. But I did, without imagining that 'book review' could be an editor's embellishment. Sorry.

Curmudgeon, Like Cheryl and other diverse trolls on this site your main tactic is to redefine the arguments into a form that you can then "debunk". But there has only ever been one definition of peak oil. Ever since Hubbert defined the idea (although the descriptive term 'peak oil' was invented later) it has meant the peak RATE of oil production. That rate will be determined by a complex range of factors including geology/the form of oil reserves, investment, politics etc. (with geology being the ultimate, restrictive determinant). You need to pound that into your skull Curmudgeon. A declining rate of oil production means a declining rate of overall energy supply (since oil is so important in facilitating other forms of energy production) and that means less economic activity - i.e. economic contraction.

michael_in_adelaide

Only one definition of peak oil? Sorry but there are peak oilist who would strongly disagree with you. See the link with the recent article on this site..

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13589

Now I certainly don't agree with all the article myself but his position is at least arguable, and according to him you and Michael Lardelli don't really exist..

As for Hubbert.. in fact, my definition of peak oil doesn't really contradict him. What you want to do is find the original article in Scientific America by Campbell and Laherrere which revivied peak oil in its modern form, using Hubbert (its available online).. They also agree with the indisputable fact that there is much more unconventional oil than there is conventional oil and its not running out any time soon. but they note there may be dislocation in the market..

The article itself has been overtaken by events in that it was arguing that no further deep sea deposits would be found and exploited.. so much for that forecast.. none the less you would be advised to read it before trying to lecture me..

Bit nasty of you there Michael-in-Adelaide re the troll remark. You're the one living under the bridge of your mad 'end of the earth' fantasies. Your article reads like a first year reporter positively gushing over a pop star. I wonder if you can see the hypocrisy of writing anti-population articles 'while the children are asleep'?

Curmudgeon - you keep trying to ridicule peak oil concerns by referring to reserve sizes when it is production RATES that matter and are important for the functioning of the economy. If you agree with the definition of peak oil when why do you continuously try to dismiss peak oil concerns? Or do you simply not understand that activity of any kind, including economic activity, requires energy? Less energy, less activity (= economic contraction).

The truth is that your comments simply try to spread confusion and doubt where none is appropriate. Hence the troll tag...

" I wonder if you can see the hypocrisy of writing anti-population articles 'while the children are asleep'? "

? Sorry - you've lost me.

michael_in_adelaide
You were the one who keep on insisting that oil is about to run out when it isn't .. if you agree that there is plenty of oil left then we've made progress..

Now production rates have obviously levelled off.. the question is why? Because OPEC isn't producing as it should.. the fields are still going but declining.. one theory is that OPEC countries have not been investing in production and exploration as they should, as one way of ensuring that the price stays up without trying to enforce production quotas.. As you will see if you look at the production results the big news is the ongoing shift to non-OPEC oil. that is going to accelerate particularly now that they've found those vast new offshore fields. Also note the vast expansion in output from Canada.
In the mean time oil will certainly become more expensive.

As you can see peak oil is of very little use in analysing any of this. Oil is the most analysed commodity, but analysts of all stripes are often wrong in forecasting it, and that includes those who bang on about peak oil. Now you might begining to understand why I'm so dismissive of it..

Alan Parker • OAM
“Conventional oil “ is typically high quality, free flowing light oil that is under pressure and in most cases pumps itself out of the ground until about half of the oil had been extracted from an oil reservoir. The “peaking of world conventional oil production” is the sum total of all reservoir production when it reaches a peak and is referred to as “oil peaking” or “peak oil” Most, of the reserves of conventional oil requires less energy, produces less CO2
and cost less to extract and refine into fuel and petrochemicals than non-conventional oil.

“Non-conventional” oil reserves are mostly, heavy and tar like requiring a lot more investment and energy to extract from sands or rocks on the surface or under ground and then refine it into usable oil products. It includes some high quality, free flowing light oil that is recovered from oil fields in deep water (<500 m) or from Polar Regions. Non-conventional oil can also be synthesised from coal or gas which will greatly increase CO2 emissions which needs to be buried underground in safe way that prevents it leaking back into the atmosphere. This is possible by “carbon sequestration” .

Government intervention is necessary to prudently risk manage the unsustainable growth of oil dependence. Planning, researching and developing practical measures to mitigate the potentially disastrous consequences of conventional world oil production peaking is needed at least ten years before the peak.

Adapting to oil peaking without boosting CO2 emissions will be extremely complex, will involve trillions of dollars invested world wide and many years of intense effort by all the developed nations. Oil peaking presents Australia and the world with a risk management problem like that of global warming , over population and depletion of the worlds fresh water reserves.

I have lived in Iran and hd the pleasure of having dinner with Ali Samsan when he came to Melbourne and he fired me up to write a paper about oil, dependence for a transport research conference

I look forward to reading Kjell's book - thanks for 'tanslating' Michael.
I hope he addresses some of the issues in PEST's post, namely, how to deal with the decline of conventional oil without raising carbon dioxicde emissions. I am currently reading Michael T Klare's excellent book "The race for what's left - the global scramble for the world's last resources" and I am genuinely shocked by the extent of unconventional oil reserves, but will they come at an unacceptable environmental cost?

AGW is a failed 'theory'; any peaker that conflates the 'horror' of peak oil with CO2 driven catastrophic climate change is not worth listening to for two reasons.

There is a very good reason for “Peak Everything” to crop up persistently in these debates. The origins can be found in the history of “Sustainable Development” with its origins back to the Club of Rome, the Brundtland Commission, UNEP’s Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Protocol.

Sustainable Development has three core elements; these are “The Steady State Economy”, “Managed Recession” and “Degrowth” (in many manifestations). Every one of these is totally dependent upon assigning an artificial “Peak” value to and the “rationing” of all supplies of natural resources, human populations, and stocks of human-built capital.

Without the direct or implied threats of “limits” there can be no basis for imposing Sustainable Development upon industrialized nations.

These ideological thought bubbles are where we are heading and I don’t hold out much hope of stopping them now, not after 40 years of grinding ideological stealth and spreading UN/EU tentacles.

If we wish to see real life examples of “The Steady State Economy”, “Managed Recession” and “Degrowth”, just take a look at the once vibrant EU.

The sheer volume of United Nations organizational bodies, committee’s groups, sub groups, reports, papers, definitions and abstracts is nothing short of astonishing. In addition to the dozens of front line SD bodies, almost every other UN body has adopted its own principles and charter in relation to SD.

If we need examples of just how malignant and really ugly this can get;

“Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a program that has forcibly sterilized Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. The Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programs. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control. --Gethin Chamberlain, (The Observer, 15 April 2012)”

Now this IS sick!

I give up Curmudgeon. When I have ever said oil is about to run out? Show me the post? But then that is the debate style of the trolls that we see again and again - repeated false attributions of ideas and statements. And then you simply repeat your same unfounded assertions over and over again. (Go and look a the rate of production expected from the deepwater off Brazil and then tell me how that is going to save the world economy.) Trying to debate you is just a waste of time....

"Now this IS sick!"

It is misanthropy and it is misanthropy which informs every aspect of the green movement and its many horesemen of the apocalypse, with AGW and peak oil being top of the insidious heap.

The dominant agent of the greens is the UN, the world's biggest and most corrupt bureaucracy which wants nothing more than financial independence; this financial independence would be best achieved through being the banker for international carbon credit trading.

AGW is inherently misanthropic as is the peaker syndrome.

michael_in_adelaide

no its you who are wasting my time.. now there is some excellent material being produced on oil production and even warning of an oil shock, which is perfectly possible in the current circumstances.. you would learn so much if you would get busy and look at the material being produced now and dump peak oil.. as an analytical tool it is of no use..

No matter what attitude is taken to peak oil, there is a major problem
coming down the road and the only ones who can at the very least warn
the population and get them to take notice are the politicians.

When is Martin Ferguson going to stand up and spell it out like it is ?

Bazz what is coming down the road, & very damn soon now, is millions of Greeks, not bearing gifts.

It won't just be Greeks, but most of their southern Mediterranean brothers, running away from a Europe totally stuffed by green/politically correct/hand out ideology that has trashed their entire EU union.

Peak oil, or peak anything else will be of minor importance.

Besides there is plenty of oil under the southern end of the barrier reef off Gladstone. When things get really tough, our own greenies will be clamoring for us to harvest it, just like they suddenly fancied damns, when their life style was threatened by a water shortage.

Hasbeen said;
Besides there is plenty of oil under the southern end of the barrier reef off Gladstone.

Ahhh, interesting, who found it ?
But importantly, how much ?
A billion barrels = 11 days.

I have heard talk of it some time ago, but nothing firm.
I suppose the greenies would be up in arms about it.
When the queues at the service station get to be an hour long there
will be a rush of drilling rigs to the site.

Available in 68 days according to the book depository's pre-order option, at $31 delivered

and, FYI Michael, you are credited as the translator...
"Peeking at Peak Oil (Hardback) By (author) Kjell Aleklett, Illustrated by Olle Qvennerstedt, Translated by Michael Lardelli"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13617#235715

The maths is against you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e_VpyoAXpA8

as is the IEA (after years of being deniers as well)
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/peak-oil-just-around-the-corner/3010606

"Fatih Birol* says the age of cheap oil is over and we all need to prepare ourselves for higher oil prices. Further he says no government is prepared for what lies ahead."

* Chief Economist - International Energy Agency