Heinburg's Peak denial + Monbiot's We were wrong on Peak Oil

Post by **clv101** » 03 Jul 2012, 10:04

Pepperman wrote:Wow, is that all it takes for Monbiot to change his views? One report by an oil executive? I'm astonished.

Well, Monbiot's always blown hot and cold on peak oil. I've never got the impression he really gets it.

dmorm · Post by **dmorm** » 03 Jul 2012, 10:10

Also - from the original report ...

"I owe a special thanks to BP for its funding of the Geopolitics of Energy Project that made my study possible."

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... lution.pdf

Pepperman · Post by **Pepperman** » 03 Jul 2012, 10:15

dmorm wrote:Also - from the original report ...

"I owe a special thanks to BP for its funding of the Geopolitics of Energy Project that made my study possible."

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... lution.pdf

ETA: please go and post that on the guardian comments thread

rightee · Post by **rightee** » 03 Jul 2012, 10:36

Perhaps a letter for tomorrow's Guardian might be in order?

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 Jul 2012, 11:02

clv101 wrote:
Pepperman wrote:Wow, is that all it takes for Monbiot to change his views? One report by an oil executive? I'm astonished.
Well, Monbiot's always blown hot and cold on peak oil. I've never got the impression he really gets it.

Something is definitely wrong with his grasp of the bigger picture. The last time I found myself in sharp disagreement with him it was about his conversion to supporting nuclear power, and the reason was that he didn't appear to understand the legacy problems - i.e. if we're heading for long-term economic problems then our descendents are going to be very poorly equipped to deal with huge cost of cleaning up after the nuclear industry, and he doesn't take this into account. Now I find myself disagreeing with him because he's claiming that the price of oil is going to remain consistently high enough to convince the oil companies to continue investing in very expensive and difficult projects. There is a pattern here, and it has something to do with Monbiot not fully appreciating the significance of the economic catastrophe that is unfolding - he seems to think we can return to something like BAU.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Jul 2012, 11:16

Pepperman wrote: ETA: please go and post that on the guardian comments thread

Did it earlier:

biffvernon
3 July 2012 7:58AM
Monbiot is wrong on this. Reasons and discussion at http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=21280

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 03 Jul 2012, 13:17

mobbsey wrote:You're also forgetting that heavier and less well matured tars/shales don't yield light sweet, and thus they have a lower volumetric yield of product from crude, and a lower EROEI -- so you can never take it as a 1:1 substitution of delivered energy.

I'd like to ask about that.

There are hundreds of articles now appearing on the web claiming peak oil is a 'theory' and is now 'debunked'. Of course, the pressure is on for the industry to keep up their share prices.

Most often, deniers quote total production, glossing over the proportion that is declining conventional production.

Are there trustworthy articles out there charting energy density against volume?

rightee · Post by **rightee** » 03 Jul 2012, 13:18

Turns out the author of the Harvard paper (which Monbiot quotes) is a "former Italian oil industry executive without academic credentials."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292#comment-903285

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 03 Jul 2012, 13:21

rightee wrote:Turns out the author of the Harvard paper (which Monbiot quotes) is a "former Italian oil industry executive without academic credentials."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292#comment-903285

Yeah, this is a trend, one of many opinions recently posted on the web as 'authoritative' and merely aimed at shoring up profitability for a dying industry.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 03 Jul 2012, 13:42

Dave Summers: http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... ssumptions

peaceful_life · Post by **peaceful_life** » 03 Jul 2012, 14:49

He's got to go for this.

Post by **clv101** » 03 Jul 2012, 14:55

Here's a great 'debunking' of Monbiot's article:
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... k-oil.html

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 03 Jul 2012, 15:26

clv101 wrote:Here's a great 'debunking' of Monbiot's article:
http://elizaphanian.blogspot.co.uk/2012 ... k-oil.html

Thanks for that Chris.

Here's hoping that Moonbat gets to read this worthy response as well.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 03 Jul 2012, 15:52

Brent back over $100. Looks like someone is printing money again.

rightee · Post by **rightee** » 03 Jul 2012, 15:52

They are coming thick and fast today:

Stoneleigh's article "Unconventional Oil is NOT a game changer"

http://www.theautomaticearth.com/Energy ... anger.html