NEWSNIGHT - PEAK OIL!

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 22 Dec 2005, 09:35

Exactly. Radical change is never on the agenda even when the catastrophic consequences are clearly obvious. When the consequences are less tangible and not totally obvious to people then you can expect no change whatsoever....from the majority. That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 22 Dec 2005, 09:45

Interestingly, they had their peak for oil on their chart when doing a history of energy at 2005.

I wish they'd had Skrebowski on there. Or us.

The debate was chaotic but I did get satisfaction from hearing PO mentioned and seeing JHK on there.

I've suspected Paxman (and Andrew Marr) of being fully clued up on Peak Oil for some time, going by some of their previous comments.

dudley · Post by **dudley** » 22 Dec 2005, 11:24

Hi Newmac: we already talked about the 'propaganda model' at the LSE meeting. Now I'll really have to buy the Chomsky book and find out what you're talking about! I already forgot the title, though. Maybe you can remind me.

It's good that PO was on Newnight.

Are the slides Skrebowski was using available on the web? Those projections of supply and demand for the next ten years should be seen by everybody.

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 22 Dec 2005, 11:28

If you want to buy now I'd recommend:
Manufacturing Consent (the political economy of the mass media) - Chomsky and Herman

or

Free to be Human - Edwards

In Feb there is a book called Guardian of Power coming out which takes Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model (five filters) and applies it to the UK liberal media with shed loads of evidence to back it up as working. This is by Edwards and Cromwell.

When you understand the five filters the lack of peak oil mainstream news not only becomes understandable, it actually becomes obvious. Then you don't need to worry about the "if it really was so immenent surely it would be in the papers" thoughts.

Post by **clv101** » 22 Dec 2005, 11:46

newmac wrote:In Feb there is a book called Guardian of Power coming out which takes Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model (five filters) and applies it to the UK liberal media with shed loads of evidence to back it up as working. This is by Edwards and Cromwell.

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guard ... _power.php

Looks interesting, though looking at the chapter titles they seem to have forgotten the Peak Oil chapter!

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 22 Dec 2005, 11:51

If comprehending PO burst your bubble. Once you understand the propaganda model a bigger bubble will burst. And the joy of it is, that it is all driven by market forces, common sense, time factors etc.

http://www.answers.com/topic/propaganda-model

for an overview....but you need to test it empirically which is what Chomsky, Herman, Edwards, Cromwell do

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 22 Dec 2005, 11:55

wayne72 wrote:
My suggestion now is to bombard BBC and ITV with emails about Peak Oil. If they recieve thousands of emails and letters, i'm sure they'll put a programme on. It would only make sense as far as viewers are concerned.

Wayne

You can send the Newsnight Editors your views on the programme, which may or may not be published using the form on this page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 0.stm#form

I suggest as menay people as possible do, as this will encourage the BBC to return to the subject.

This is what I sent them:

"At the start of Wednesdays 21st show Paxman asked the question - "Is the age of oil about to end and if it is, how will we survive"

WRONG WRONG WRONG. He couldnt introduced what is an important subject - the impending peak of global conventional oil output with more misleading question.

We have been in the 'Age of Oil' for the last 150 years - most importantly since the beginning of the 20th Century and the widespread adoption of the internal combustion engine, and WILL continue to be in the age of oil for at least as long again.

The most important point was skated over very quickly by your tieless presenter...

(Sidebar: If you are going to remove the ties from your presenters , dont dress them up in suits and a formal shirt. That just makes them look like dorks. Either wear a tie or go completely smart casual. The "Foreign correspondent on location' look is good)

... and that is when are we going to reach the geologically constrained peak of global production, the point at which output cannot be increased no matter what effort is made to do so.

Next time you cover this issue please show a Hubbert curve of oil production, perhaps for the lower 48 states of the USA, which peaked in 1971-72 and has been declining in output ever since, despite being by an order of magnitude the most heavily drilled place on the planet.

The possible economic, social, and political effects of the inability of output being increased in response to demand, and thereafter going into a perpetual decline is what its all about. What will the stock market do once it realises the gig is up and that 'growth' is no longer possible? Once oil decline sets in will we have enough spare energy to build the infrastructure for its replacement?

That point was not made clear, and several of your contributors just did not "get it". They seem to think that the world runs on money rather than physics, unfortunately a common delusion in the corridors of power.

Next time I suggest you include a petroleum geologist from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), and an ecologist who can explain the meaning of 'overshoot' on your panel. "

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 22 Dec 2005, 12:07

Why are we obsessed with Hubbert curves? They're not actually necessary to get this point across. Okay having snazzy graphics might help but we can do without them.

Hubbert predicted a peak of US oil production 40 years after a peak of discovery. Does the world's oil production follow the pattern of US oil? Who knows?

tattercoats · Post by **tattercoats** » 22 Dec 2005, 12:16

I've put in my two pennyworth - the first time I've done so to Newsnight. Let's see what happens.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 22 Dec 2005, 12:30

bigjim wrote:Why are we obsessed with Hubbert curves? They're not actually necessary to get this point across. Okay having snazzy graphics might help but we can do without them.

Hubbert predicted a peak of US oil production 40 years after a peak of discovery. Does the world's oil production follow the pattern of US oil? Who knows?

Logically, it must. Its like the Monty Python sketch about dinosaurs. "My theory about dinosaurs is that they are very very small at the front... very very big in the middle... and then very very small again at the back" . ( presented by John Cleese in dress and wig)

Logically... global production started at nothing, will reach a peak and then will decline back down to nothing , eventually, as we know very approximately following a bell or Hubbert curve.

Its very easy to forget that this is NOT what most people think.

If people think about it at all and have the knowledge that crude oil is a finite resource they have some hazy image of global oil reserves working in the same way as their petrol station - no matter how much petrol is in the tank under the station the petrol always comes out of the pump at the same rate - until the tank is empty when it suddenly stops. In the absence of any knowlege of the geophysics of oilfields they are mentally pictured as big tanks under the ground.

This thinking is re-enforced by the deliberately missleading statements by the oil companies, like Lord Whatsisname of BP going on about how we have 40 years of oil reserves at current rate of production . Right..."So no no problem then" thinks joe public.. Wrong. His Lordship ommitted to inform the public that quite soon current rate of production will no longer be possible. And that depite production continuing for at least another 100 years, declining production rate will very soon be a huge problem.

The Hubbert curve is useful because it communicates better than words that production does not just continue like premium unleaded being pumped into a car, and that the possible rate of production, not reserves, is the real problem.

Thats what the Newsnight programme skated over all too briefly, and should have been given more prominence.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 22 Dec 2005, 13:47

Nice post skeptik. What I meant was will it follow US oil production re timing- ie US peak 40 years after discovery peak, for UK it was 25 years, it varies for all nations.

wayne72 · Post by **wayne72** » 22 Dec 2005, 14:06

newmac wrote:A few points:

People know about environmental issues and continue to do nothing. I know awareness of PO is very important due to the potential social implications but it ain't the be all and end all.

Point taken, but what you have to remember with the Envirinmental issue is, that views on its cause and implications can change almost daily. One day to the next it can be blamed on Fossil Fuels, then it's just a natural occurance. All this leads to is confusion in the public eye, thus they don't know were to turn, so they just carry on as normal

As for Peak Oil, there's only one path, its gonna happen. Its gonna produce major changes. Either deal with it now and prepare for a new life or wait until its too late and die in a chaotic society! The choices are there, Party till the end, or quit while the going's good.

There's no real debate as to what is causing Peak Oil, that answer is use and over use of a finite source. A source that because of sustained growth and a Oil based economy is going to deplete faster and faster. There's no Abiotic, Oil takes millions of years to form. We are using it at an alarming rate. The only solution is a new system of living, a new monetary system. A return to localization. Using what Oil's left for essentials and essentials only. Of course you lot on here probably know this already.

By the way I could go on and but I won't.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 22 Dec 2005, 14:14

bigjim wrote:Nice post skeptik. What I meant was will it follow US oil production re timing- ie US peak 40 years after discovery peak, for UK it was 25 years, it varies for all nations.

Right ...well thats the $64,000 dollar question, as they used to say...

I have no idea, and I dont think anybody else has either. The 'difficulty' of the prodution environment, advances in technology and changes in oilfield management strategies must obviously effect discovery to production peak timescales.

Non-existent, dodgy and deliberately withheld data is a big part of the problem.

Even when the data is good the 'experts' often get it wrong. Estimating reserves and future production seems to be as much voodoo as science.

The sudden decline in North Sea oil and gas production after 1999 seems to have caught everybody (did anybody sound the alarm prior to '99? correct me if Im wrong - If they did nobody ilistened to them) on the hop and we are told that North Sea is one of the best documented areas in the world.

To me as a non-expert looking in on the discussion it just looks like a big game of 'Pin the tail on the donkey'

newmac · Post by **newmac** » 22 Dec 2005, 14:46

A lot of the muddying of the waters re environmental issues is also explained by the propaganda model - look at the flax filter and the advertising filter.

With this the cause and effect is muddied.

With peak oil the cause is also muddied (its only because it can't be muddied it in your eyes that you can see it all crystal clear). The main muddying in this regard is the effects.

The effects are not know, although we know that chances are they ain't going to be good. The propaganda model will do its upmost to blur the effects so that no action is taken and business as usual continues - until it can't.

RevdTess · Post by **RevdTess** » 22 Dec 2005, 15:01

skeptik wrote:If people think about it at all and have the knowledge that crude oil is a finite resource they have some hazy image of global oil reserves working in the same way as their petrol station - no matter how much petrol is in the tank under the station the petrol always comes out of the pump at the same rate - until the tank is empty when it suddenly stops. In the absence of any knowlege of the geophysics of oilfields they are mentally pictured as big tanks under the ground.

Quite so. This was exactly my default understanding until I stumbled across LifeAfterTheOilCrash last Christmas while preparing for an oil-related IT job. Until that moment of stomach-churning reality, I had always assumed that there was a century of oil in the ground and that it would always be available in sufficient quantities until one day it stopped dead, by which time of course we'd have fusion and all sorts of other unlimited power sources...