Newsnight mentions peak oil and draws it!

Post by **clv101** » 25 Apr 2006, 23:04

Did anyone watch Newsnight today (25/04/06)? There was a long piece on oil - many issues covered but near the end they drew a Hubbert curve and mentioned peak oil as something to worry about. The economist went on to say the high prices might bring new reserves to market though...

The video will be available here once the broadcast has finished:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... efault.stm

Unfortunately, we are unable to make Tuesday's programme available online due to copyright restrictions.

D'oh!

Ballard · Post by **Ballard** » 25 Apr 2006, 23:27

yes, I just caught it,

They seemed to have the date of peak at sometime beyond 2100 however, but then again I didn't see it very clearly.

Post by **clv101** » 25 Apr 2006, 23:32

I was so surprised to see it I didn't catch the date for the initial case - it was early though I believe. The 2nd and 3rd curves they put up where what would happen if sustained high prices brought more oil that isn't currently economical to market.

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 26 Apr 2006, 01:51

Could you post a download link here if/when it becomes available?

Thanks.

Post by **clv101** » 26 Apr 2006, 07:54

The video is now on the Newsnight site and I've transcribed the interview with graphics here: http://uk.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/23413/8691

bobcousins · Post by **bobcousins** » 29 Apr 2006, 18:41

Paul Mason has published a guest piece about peak oil on his blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulmason/20 ... rices.html. He is inviting civilised debate! Mason seems to be one of the more perceptive reporters on Newsnight.

One of the really interesting developments over the past few years is the increase in interaction between the MSM and the public.

Post by **clv101** » 29 Apr 2006, 23:54

I added this:

It is to the BBC's credit that Newsnight addressed the subject of high oil prices last week including the input from economics editor Stephanie Flanders. Unfortunately the concept presented - that high oil prices would push peak production rate to the end of the century - is complete rubbish.

To extract oil first one must discover oil. Discovery of oil peaked in the early sixties and has been declining ever since. Since the early eighties we have been extracting more oil each year than has been discovered. There is no doubt that the extraction rate of regular oil has hit the limit and must now decline, no matter what the price does. That is geology and physics, not economics.

We are left then with unconventional oil, tar sands, oil shale and extra heavy oil. Potential reserves may be large but are not comparable to regular oil. These unconventional reserves require large amounts of energy to extract, decreasing the net energy available. They require large amounts of natural gas (also limited) and water. But the most significant point is that they are slow to extract.

Peak oil is all about the rate of extraction. Unconventional reserves have a slow rate of extraction. To suggest as Flanders did last week that such reserves will provide 140 million barrels per day in 2100 is fanciful.

I urge the BBC to address the subject of peak oil in a rigorous manor.

It's not great... maybe someone else could add something?

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 30 Apr 2006, 08:09

I've just watched it - amazing to see James Howard Kunstler on Newsnight!

Having said that, now I feel like we really are stuffed - they just don't want to hear it - I think they may even have chuckled at one point at his suggestion we might have to go back to a less energy-dependent living arrangement!

So, with one of the most lucid and fact-based explanations of the problem as you'll see and the closing thoughts were that we'll just have to transition to hydrogen some time around 2050...the only way of getting the message across is some serious pain which will surely come as a total surprise.

bobcousins · Post by **bobcousins** » 30 Apr 2006, 14:57

clv101 wrote:It's not great... maybe someone else could add something?

Hmm, perhaps "complete rubbish" is not very diplomatic - even if true!

Thing is, journalists, even specialised ones, are not really instigators of data. So they are going to take the offical US forecasts. If they use different ones, or produce their own, they have to justify that. For balance, they can only report there is a discrepancy. Their job really isn't to decide what is true, but to report what people are saying is true.

So we need to point them to independent organisations with credibility like ASPO and academics like Deffeyes. Also doubts expressed from within the US, like the Hirsch report, I think are good places to go. Additionally, it would be a very bad idea to tie PO in with other issues like war on Iraq etc, these things do not add credibility, but provide a bigger theory that they have to buy in to. Go with the facts, like reduction in space capacity, and costs of producing unconventional oil.

My 2p.

[Fixed typo]