Image:
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
End or No End?
In “Squeezing More Oil from the Ground,” Leonardo Maugeri, director of strategies and development of an international oil company, expresses the conventional view of his profession, assuming a world of near-infinite oil resources to be produced under market forces. Maugeri is particularly dismissive of our Scientific American article “The End of Cheap Oil” [March 1998]. It is difficult to find fault with at least its title, considering that the average price of oil over the preceding 10 years was $28 a barrel but rose to $45 over the ensuing decade to reach a peak of almost $150 in 2008.
Given the central place of oil-based energy in the modern world, it is critically important that governments should base their policies on realistic depletion profiles, despite ambiguous definitions and lax reporting practices. Decline typically commences at about midpoint of depletion, as already exemplified in more than 50 countries. World discovery peaked in the 1960s and must deliver a corresponding peak of production. A debate rages as to the precise date of peak but misses the point when what matters is the vision of the long decline on the other side of it.
Colin Campbell
Founder, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
Jean Laherrère
President, ASPO France
MAUGERI REPLIES: It seems to me that the conventional view about oil has become precisely the one proposed by Campbell and Laherrère: that the world is heading toward peak production. In my article, I never say that oil is bound to last forever. Instead I warn against those who affirm to know when its production will peak, because no one can calculate the future derivate of an unknown stock. This is simply a nonscientific approach to the issue, as proved by the repeated mistakes in their calculations about the “peak” period. In fact, we still don’t know that much about the subsurface inner secrets, nor do we know the exact oil endowment of our planet.
As to the issue of cheap oil, we should agree on the meaning of “cheap.” What appears expensive today could be much cheaper in the future, thanks to the advancement of technology. The negative psychology created by unjustified alarmism about peak oil continues to introduce instability and volatility in the market, harming any concept of sustainable development because uncertainty could determine a sort of “energy investment paralysis.”
Feed the World
The agricultural industry may see biotechnology as an important part of farming’s future, as four biotech executives say in “Biotech’s Plans to Sustain Agriculture.” But the evidence is not very strong for this very biased viewpoint. The opposite is described very well in the study “Failure to Yield,” by the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture). That the problem is one of distribution more than production is highlighted by the fact that Americans throw away enough usable food to feed all the hungry in Africa. And although DNA-marker-assisted breeding seems to be helpful to increase yields, gene insertion seems to be much less useful.
“Failure to Yield” concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the past 13 years, the report found, was largely attributable to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentMost anyone who can do basic math can tell peak oil production happened about 2005.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is even if there was oil enough, the number of drilling rigs are down as not much chance of production ever reaching 2005 rate. And only 1bbl for every 4 we use is being found. Anyone would be a fool to bet that peak oil hasn't happened.
That the problem is one of distribution more than production is highlighted by the fact that Americans throw away enough usable food to feed all the hungry in Africa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it sounds like what the oil company spokesman is saying is they raised their oil price to $145.00 per barrel to starve Americans to teach them a lesson not to throw away all their food and we still have a great reserve of oil that has not reached its peak. And that the oil price will come down when Americans have learn their lesson.
I would describe in great detail what kind of scum-bags I think the oil companys are, but I am sure SciAm would delete the comment, so, it will be better to let the electric cars and nuclear energy power plants say it for us.
I do have to say this though whither SciAm deletes it or not.... You oil tycoons are "Low life sewage sucking paracitic scum".
Maugeri's reply basically translates to "Screw you guys, my interests generate ten figures a year. As long as the dough keeps rolling in I don't give a damn about how tightly you consumers get squeezed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall me a fool then. I don't think we have even scratched the surface on the available oil in the planet. Current production rates are stagnant, not because of limits on available oil, but because there isn't enough demand to keep the price high enough to justify the expense of producing more oil. The only evidence I need for this is the current price of oil and how the bottom fell out recently. The only peak we may have reached is a peak in production from large pockets of oil that are extremely easy to get to, but to think that these vast pockets themselves represent the total of available oil is similar to making the argument that the water in the rivers represents the majority of the water on a continent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often have this same debate with people who worry about over-population. Just take a few long flights around the world and you'll begin to get an idea of just how big this planet is. If you dropped a random probe from space, the odds are that it will land somewhere miles away from any human beings.
kfreels,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd your evidence for just scratching the surface is what? Despite high prices and rising consumption (fed partly by dwindling oil stocks) up to under 2 years ago, oil discovery still hasn't exceeded consumption since the 80s. Yes, the oil price plummeted as the recession kicked in and consumption fell. What a surprise. But it is now back in the 70-80 dollar range, which is historically high, as consumption creeps back up.
Of course there are small pockets of oil around and, who knows, there may be as much as you imagine, but the point is that the easy oil has gone. It will not be easy, and may be impossible, to replace the declining production from the giant fields of the past (many of which are still producing significant amounts), with a myriad of scattered fields, never mind increasing production. If the world's economies continue their recovery, there is only one way the oil price will go, and high oil prices generally trigger recessions, so expect another real soon.
As for dropping a random probe from space and its landing miles from any human beings, you're right. After all, the vast majority of the earth's surface is water. On land, the picture is very different. Take a look out of that window on your next flight and consider how much habitable land (i.e. not mountain tops and the like) had been affected by humans and how much has been highly damaged.
There's a basic principal (principle?) of physics that you may not know about - each barrel of oil takes a certain amount of energy to get from under ground or in sands or whatever, to above ground and in your car or your furnace. No matter what the price of oil is, once it takes more energy to get the oil out of the ground than the energy you get from the oil, it's over. Market forces will not change the laws of physics. The arguments about efficiency and research are just smoke and mirrors. So there is a point where, once we're out we're out and that's it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about techniques that improve oil output per well? There's another side to technological improvements: the 1/2 way point of total planetary petrofuel reserves gets pushed back every now and then by better methods for extracting or finding it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd there's a company in California that claims to have found a way to produce gasoline directly from CO2 emissions at coal- or gas-fired power plants. Not sure about the thermodynamics, but there are a lot of ways forward.
In the meantime, it's fine if our species learns a few new tricks - like respect for our planet, and wiser use of resources. It shouldn't take a dire situation to get us all paying attention to the size of our footprints.
There are not a lot of ways forward for oil. Extraction technologies can either delay the peak or soften the decline for a while but it only buys time if something is done with that time. As for combining hydrogen and carbon from CO2 emissions, that sounds like a good energy return - not. It may have some small economic and climate value but it's not going to replace oil declines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you think respect for our planet is a good strategy then why not do that as a first course of action? We don't do that because people believe in infinite resources.
I've listened to the P.O. debate online for years and one thing is clear, it is not a debate of logic or science but one of faith. All the facts, figures, charts, metaphors and harangues imaginable will not sway a person one way or another from their initial basic reaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile some are happy filling spreadsheets and charts with facts and speculations, others search endlessly for analogs on easter island and whaling boats and in the stone age.
But no matter which side of the debate a person instinctively starts, it's unlikely they'll change their behavior and more unlikely still they'll change their "belief".
The reason I subscribe to Scientific American is because you present a wide variety of topics and theories in a way that those of us outside the scientific community can understand. I read every article and learn something new each time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I am really disappointed with recent articles by Steve Mirsky especially Greenhouse Bananas , Feb. 2010. This article is filled with unprofessional opinion, unproven facts, and childish name calling. Calling a U.S. Senator a clown and a gleeful anarchist is the lowest form of debate, let alone disrespectful. Even high school classes teach the proper method of debate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mirsky, like so many of his socialist friends, do not believe in an honest debate of the issues. Their attitude is that anyone can speak his mind as long as they agree with their position. If you dont subscribe to my opinion or theory, you are undoubtedly a clown, a raciest, a capitalist polluter, and a dog torturer.
The jury is still out on Global Warming and will be for quite awhile as more factual information comes to light. Argue on either side of the issue you choose to believe in but keep it honest and professional. Mr. Mirsky is neither and doesnt belong in your publication.
No Unscientific Editors Please
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I subscribe to Scientific American is because you present a wide variety of topics and theories in a way that those of us outside the scientific community can understand. I read every article and learn something new each time.
However, I am really disappointed with recent articles by Steve Mirsky especially “Greenhouse Bananas”, Feb. 2010. This article is filled with unprofessional opinion, unproven facts, and childish name calling. Calling a U.S. Senator a clown and a gleeful anarchist is the lowest form of debate, let alone disrespectful. Even high school classes teach the proper method of debate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Mirsky, like so many of his socialist friends, do not believe in an honest debate of the issues. Their attitude is that anyone can speak his mind as long as they agree with their position. If you don’t subscribe to my opinion or theory, you are undoubtedly a clown, a raciest, a capitalist polluter, and a dog torturer.
The jury is still out on Global Warming and will be for quite awhile as more factual information comes to light. Argue on either side of the issue you choose to believe in but keep it honest and professional. Mr. Mirsky is neither and doesn’t belong in your publication.
The heat on the climate change agenda and emission reductions for a carbonless future is bound to bring in technology that reduces demand for oil,and hence business as usual assumptions may not be valid.In transport and electricity production sectors hybrids and biobased systems as well as clean and efficient burning techniques and methods will reduce petroleum consumption.The hydrogen economy can easily take off with some political will and infrastructure support.The oil politics apart ,there are technical and policy challenges to be addressed before a parallel hydrogen or alternate fuel technology can really play a significant complementary or at least supplementary role .Considering developments on all these fronts including the drive on green buildings and technologies/processes/materials, we are not that likely exhaust oil resources and supplies that quickly as many reports seem to suggest.I bet oil will last till alternate technologies and fuel systems catch up,and that would be faster,I mean the catching up,than presently being forecast,particularly in the decade next.Post Kyoto is definitely going to make a difference in the way the world goes about using energy intensive and high carbon footprint projects and programs.The embedded carbon in materials will drastically come down as a result,and CCS is bound to be a major initiative as also REDD projects and returns there off.When carbon dioxide is sequestered in underground oil wells that are getting exhausted ,then not only more oil is squeezed out but carbon in air is also getting reduced.Some chemico-biological geoengineering focussed solutions and physical methods,materials and devices may also come in handy here,as some trends would seem to suggest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut one problem could come from deeper wells that are more than 1.5-2 kms ,and which can disturb methane hydrates on ocean floors leading to methane emissions in large quantities.This has to guarded against technologically ,or methods to capture methane needed.
SURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,CSIR,TRIVANDRUM,INDIA