Hi all,

Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide university asked me to write a piece for his blog. This may be one of the clearest articles I’ve ever written on why the USGS is wrong on oil, who the professional geologists are arguing that the USGS is wrong, and why we should trust the lifetime field geologists over the economically driven projections of the pencil-nosed accountants who wrote the USGS 2000 report that misled the world in the first place.

For it appears that the USGS 2000 oil report is the main article that has then filtered through the rest of America's energy authorities out into the world via the International Energy Agency. The IEA is where we get our global oil advice from, as ABARE do not seem to feel that monitoring global peak oil is their job.

So basically, if the USGS has it wrong, the IEA has it wrong, and our government has it all wrong as well. Please enjoy my article "On oil authorities" and then come back here for comments.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/29/peak-oil-discussion/

Abiotic oil,ie oil which comes from deep underground reserves and has no connection animal or plant origins seems to be replacing our usual fossil fuel sources.eg The Gulf disaster where they went down 8 kms to source it.Russia has the technology and now has passed Saudi Arabia as the no. 1 producer.

So peak oil could well be a lie to keep profits high.

1. Abiotic oil is an unproven theory held by 1 or 2 scientists. You may as well side with Creationism, or be a Global Warming sceptic, for all the scientific credibility that argument holds.

2. The tens of billions of dollars a year that big-oil invest in exploration is based on the biological theory.

3. 54 out of 65 oil producing nations are passed their peak. We KNOW what peak oil looks like, how it works, and the economic consequences. America peaked in the 1970's. Are you really so dim as to think their oil companies would voluntarily risk bankrupting their entire nation? That the government LIKES paying billions and billions to countries that don't like them very much? Even the USGS admits America peaked 40 years ago!

4. Even if oil was formed that way, it isn't affecting the decline rate. It's not refilling in any meaningful, measurable way. So unless you want to postulate a completely incredible and paranoid global conspiracy, you're in la la land. Did you even check the abiotic oil wiki?

As they say, "Denial" is not a river in Egypt. ;-)

Eclipse now,It has been postulated by a number of credible people.Wiki is not the font of all knowledge.

NO, but my point was you sound like a market fundamentalist in denial of some basic scientific truths. So basic a mere visit to wikipedia should have helped you clarify your thinking.

It has NOT been postulated by that many experts in the fields that actually count. Evidence please, and actually engaging the points I made above might help as well.

Eclipse Now Are you on drugs?
What the heck has the Utah Classical Guitar Society got to do with peak Oil?
Alternatively you could be one of these fools who "think" it makes you look smart using acronyms? It does not, sonny jim, go to the back of the class. Then write I must try and give a clearer idea of what I am talking about" one thousand times.

Grow up.

JBowyer, are you a member of the DNA, teh National Association of Dyslexics?

Hi Eclipse Now

Good work.

"...you sound like a market fundamentalist in denial of some basic scientific truths."

If you hadn't noticed there are a lot of market fundamentalists here! Stick it to 'em.

So my very brief article focussed on the credulity of peak oil as a geological consensus, but I hardly touched the *consequences* of peak oil.

I've given up on politicians. I personally briefed Maxine McKew for about 10 minutes on this subject. About 3 days later she attended a 45 minute lecture by Dr Roger Bezdek, co-author of the famous "Hirsch Report" for the US DOE. She has received repeated letters and emails and papers from engineers I know who are following peak oil.

Nothing.

I'm on various oil networks and happen to know that EVERY major State and Federal politician, and probably most local government council staff, have all been briefed.

Nothing.

So, sadly, I join my market friends here and say "Only the marketplace will solve it". People will only react when they see $300 a barrel oil and rationing. But by then it will be too late. As Bezdek explained to Maxine McKew (and all the CEO's attending the 2007 Smart Conference),

"Letting the marketplace *deal with* peak oil is not the solution, it's the problem. 20% unemployment, bankrupt airlines, bankrupt tourism, an enormous stock-market crash... these are some of the PROBLEMS we are trying to avoid by developing clear energy policy!"

I'm NOT a Mad Max "doomer", but who says it has to reach Mad Max for us to regret being so utterly STUPID and blind about the future of our most important resource?

Eclipse Now,

I have posted a link to this thread on OLO userID 'Ludwig's topic 'Brown's Greens have blown it!'. Ludwig (a botanist) mentioned liquid fuel supply security in his opening post in that thread as an issue that did not even rate a mention in the deal struck between the ALP and the Greens in an attempt to form a government. See: http://bit.ly/dkSM7P

For Australia and Australians, I couldn't agree more with Dr Roger Bezdek's words:


"Letting the marketplace *deal with* peak
oil is not the solution, it's the problem."


You go on to say "People will only react when they see $300 a barrel oil and rationing." I'm not sure I agree with you. I think people are already reacting, but that that reaction is not yet being articulated fully. I suggest a reason there has been such disengagement of the electorate with respect to the major political parties is because it sees a failure of leadership with respect to co-ordinated action to address this looming problem on behalf of the whole community.

I do speculate as to whether there is fear in some quarters as to an Australian public enterprise successfully solving this approaching problem and subsequently becoming a player in its own right in the international market, to Australia's particular advantage. I speculate further as to whether such interests may have sought to so occupy, or divert, the attention of elected representatives as to prevent such an enterprise from being considered by them, and subsequently developed. We certainly appear to have the world-order coal reserves upon which to base such a CTL capability, especially since the Pedirka Basin discoveries in 2009.

In the mean time, I am focussing upon micro-scale wood pyrolysis, distributed electricity generation, and Fischer-Tropsch fuels synthesis as my personal reaction to the otherwise likely consequences of this leadership vacuum.

It is a pity to see so little constructive engagement with the topic on OLO. Have you a link to the Hirsch Report? Finding the BNC blog interesting.

Sure mate, the Hirsch report can be downloaded from the footnotes here. This guy is a GENIUS. (Former fusion reactor designer!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report

Grab a coffee and watch the 45 minute peak oil special on Four Corners. It’s fun, and you get to hear what a conservative, market man Robert Hirsch really his.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

About 5 years ago I asked him to sum up the Hirsch report in 2 paragraphs. This is it. I also posted some of this stuff over at BNC.
See ya! Over to Hirsch:

"No one knows with certainty when the world production of conventional oil will peak, but a number of experts think it will happen in the next 5-15 years. Our work illustrates that the oil peaking problem can be mitigated with available technologies, but the time required for implementation is measured on a 15-20 year time line, at best.

The character of the oil peaking problem is like none other; without timely mitigation, the impacts will be dire, worldwide, and long-lasting. Prudent risk management dictates serious attention and massive action soon, which is difficult for most people and many decision-makers, who tend to wait until a problem is obvious before taking action.

Use this as you see fit."