The relation between peak oil and global warming

Cycloloco · Post by **Cycloloco** » 27 Jun 2007, 01:51

A recent press notice from an informed source.

http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressRe ... kenOil.asp

Mistaken world oil reserves estimate will undermine carbon dioxide actions

15 June 2007

A drastic miscalculation of global oil reserves publicised yesterday will lead to complacency and inaction to tackle the carbon dioxide threat to the world, says the chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry.

A report by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre yesterday said that previous estimates that oil reserves will expire in about 40 years were wrong and that they will run out much more quickly after peaking in four years time.

But Dr Richard Pike, of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a former international manager in both the petrochemical and oil industries, says that oil production might last another 100 years, meaning that the world should anticipate a much more protracted threat from the resultant carbon dioxide emissions.

Even within the energy sector there continues, he said, to be confusion between the highly conservative figures for "proven" reserves and what will actually be produced.

Dr Pike said today: "If institutions and the general public accept the warnings now being offered that oil will run out sooner than previously thought, then there will be an inevitable relaxation and complacency over the problem of carbon dioxide generated in consumption of the oil.

"We should now be working out best methods of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide to reduce global warming which will depend upon innovation in chemistry. When earlier estimates said, wrongly, that oil reserves would last another four decades or so it was already underplaying the carbon dioxide threat.

"Now, if people think that the oil will be there for only 10 or 20 years then the determination and commitment to develop capture and storage technology will ebb away and that would be a disaster."

Dr Pike warned last year, in a paper in the respected journal Petroleum Review that oil industry analysts had misinterpreted international reserves and that oil would be available for much longer, raising the issue of fossil fuel emissions over most of the 21st century.
[ENDS
.....................................

I can't make up my mind about this. People who believe in global warming from CO2 are not likely to think it matters how much there is but they want usage reduced or CO2 sequestered somewhere. We (forum members) can all agree there is going to be a slow tail-off of usage of oil but journalists keep oversimplifying the description of how long it will last.

Also this writer talks about "highly conservative figures" for reserves but most commentators on the figures think OPEC countries' figures are exaggerated. I assume we need to frighten people into reducing consumption of valuable resources (all fossil fuels) in order to spin out usage while we create a steady-state economy.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Jun 2007, 08:04

It's disappointing to see such simplistic, and hence misleading, press releases from organizations like the Royal Society of Chemistry, who really ought to be able to do better. I've said as much to Brian Emsley, their Media Relations Manager.

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 27 Jun 2007, 10:13

A knee-jerk reaction.

"Our crisis is more important!"

bobcousins · Post by **bobcousins** » 28 Jun 2007, 14:32

Now, I think I have come across Richard Pike before. You might think being at the RSC he is career scientist, in fact he is a career oil and gas man.

Here is what he says about oil reserves :

The cover story "A World Without Oil" omitted significant oil reserves: oil shale in eight countries holds a total of 1.5 trillion barrels, and the Athabasca Tar Sands is already in production with 2.5 trillion barrels.

Neither of these are really oil reserves, both require energy intensive mining and processing to turn them into a usable synthetic crude oil. The energy content of oil shale is about the same as potatoes, he didn't mention that.

At the moment production of oil from tar sands is possible with cheap natural gas, a process Matt Simmons has referred to as "turning gold into lead". As gas supplies diminish and become more expensive, the costs of syncrude become uneconomic.

When you actually have the full information about these oil reserves, the picture changes completely. Dr Pike is remiss in his job to promote understanding by omitting to mention these salient facts, some might call his statements "propaganda".

If you add the costs of carbon capture and storage that Dr Pike calls for, these "oil reserves" become even less commercial. Sure, they may well be produced at a low level for a long time, but they are never going to be a significant substitute for conventional crude.

Dr Pike relies on oil reserves data from the likes of industry groups like IHS and BP, which are the most optimistic of any forecasts and are highly questionable. I would have considerably more respect for Dr Pike if he properly addresses the work of ODAC, rather than dismiss it as "drastic miscalculation", an accusation that could equally be made of BP's data. James Hansen has also highlighted that there are a lot less hydrocarbon reserve available than projected by IPCC models.

If I was being cynical, I might think that Dr Pike is out to generate work for the members of his society (chemical engineers). But either way I don't think we can expect to get an unbiased story from the sort of industry lobbies that he represents.

And just to make clear, I am not complacent about GW, it's an important issue that still needs addressing, perhaps more so in the light of PO.

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » 28 Jun 2007, 14:56

I wish to complain about the entirely irresponsible and mistaken comments in the above press release.

Dr Pikes argument relies on the mistaken assumption that if oil starts running out sooner that will reduce effort to curb CO2 emissions.

In fact, the real danger is that the opposite will happen (and has started happening already, particularly in China, but also in India and US). As oil and gas get more scarce and more expensive as early peak in world oil production approaches, at least some nations will be tempted to use much dirtier sources of energy, such as brown coal, which will (and does) obviously lead to much greater, not lower, emissions.

Thus the exact opposite of Dr Pike's conclusions will be occuring and has started to occur already

Please don't let Dr Pike loose on the press again, he really need to check his facts before critisizing others.

Can we all email a message to this effect to Brian Emsley, the press officer at http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/Contacts/index.asp

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 28 Jun 2007, 14:59

Bob,

it's good to see your post here - I guess we last conversed while discussing thw Backstop option
(of Coppice Mehanol) over at PO.com.

Your critique of Pike is spot on for me,
but I think that this issue has to be lanced by the IPCC reviewing fuel reserve base data,
and at least publishing fuel constrained GW scenarios,
preferably with feedback scenarios overlaid.

Maybe Hansen has the necessary clout ?

Regards,

Bill

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 28 Jun 2007, 15:00

"We should now be working out best methods of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide to reduce global warming which will depend upon innovation in chemistry

"Now, if people think that the oil will be there for only 10 or 20 years then the determination and commitment to develop capture and storage technology will ebb away and that would be a disaster."

He missed out "for us" on the end of that last sentence. Says it all.