Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cashinmattress

Uk Government Report In 2009 Picked Late Peak Oil Scenario – And Got It Wrong

Recommended Posts

Summary

According to a 2009 report by the Department of Energy & Climate Change the UK Labour government thought their policies on climate change were sufficient to mitigate the impact of peak oil. Among 4 scenarios arrived at after the study of literature

1. Very early peak before 2010

2. Early peak between 2010 and 2015

3. Medium term peak between 2025-2030

4. Late Peak mid to late 2030s

the very early peak was seen unlikely although the authors realized that the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2008 showed an early peaking in existing fields and practically flat crude oil production over the projection period up to 2030.

DECC_IEA_WEO_2008.jpg

The report acknowledged many uncertainties surrounding estimates of future production but did not take these as a reason to adopt a prudent approach for additional action, despite an assessment that alternatives to oil would mature only after 2015 and mostly between 2020 and 2030.

The report also came to the conclusion that UK is better off than other countries as a result of domestic oil production – although oil import dependence was calculated to increase from 8% to 60% in 2025. Most astonishingly, additional action to make UK more resilient to peak oil was seen as impossible to “unilaterally influence the global consequences of a peak”.

Conclusion: things go wrong when governments pick scenarios convenient for them

It seems the very early peaking was dismissed so that peak oil could be covered by climate change action taken anyway and around which there is already public debate and support. The government got it wrong. The IEA’s Chief Economist Fatih Birol conceded recently that the peaking of conventional oil production happened already in 2006, as reported in this post:

28/4/2011

IEA oil crunch warning: governments should have worked on it 10 years ago

http://crudeoilpeak.info/iea-oil-crunch-warning-governments-should-have-worked-on-it-10-years-ago

What the report omitted

The report did not show the steep decline in UK oil fields:

UK_crude_oil_production_1976_2010.jpg

...

DECC_oil_price_rise_impacts.jpg

...

DECC_Very_Early_Peak_Scenario-1024x794.jpg

...

DECC_Impact_Very_Early_Peak_Scenario-1024x778.jpg

...

DECC_Conclusions-1024x673.jpg

Let’s zoom in on the box marked in red:

Given the uncertainties around the timing of peak oil and its implications for the UK, there are no obvious additional policies the UK government should pursue to minimise the likelihood of a ‘peak oil’ scenario and to be prepared to mitigate its impacts in addition to those already in place.

While there may be policies that the UK government could put in place, in addition to those above, in order to make the UK economy more robust and resilient to peak oil, it is unlikely that the UK Government can unilaterally influence the global consequences of any peak.

Clearly, this violates the principles of prudent governance.

This report was written before the credit event of 2008/2008.

So, inflation is being driven by energy price and availability. No secret there.

The UK will be importing exponentially more and more energy from here on.

The government has no policy in place, now, or seemingly in the immediate future.

See where this is going?

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report was written before the credit event of 2008/2008.

So, inflation is be driven by energy price and availability. No secret there.

The UK will be importing exponentially more and more energy from here on.

The government has no policy in place, now, or seemingly in the immediate future.

See where this is going?

UK_crude_oil_production_1976_2010.jpg

ive got a tie that looks like that (i'll hasten to add i never bought it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this eco green AGW stuff is basically a half-baked ruse to try and mitigate this scenario?

Is that a question? Depends on where you get your information.

These are just nobody's. How do these folk compete with the likes of Leo DiCaprio,and the raft of other dimwit Hollywood A-listers who pimp the Al Gore mantra?

Edited by cashinmattress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medium/long term oil is going to $200+. Natural gas to $20 +.

Would not surprise me.

Today I was looking on Aramco's job site and they are recruiting wind farm engineers / design planners. For some time solar developments have been in progress at Aramco but this the first time they have moved into wind.

Makes sense also to trade oil for physical assets (wind turbines from Jap, Europe, and USA) that have some utlity rather than toilet paper currencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This report was written before the credit event of 2008/2008.

So, inflation is be driven by energy price and availability. No secret there.

The UK will be importing exponentially more and more energy from here on.

The government has no policy in place, now, or seemingly in the immediate future.

See where this is going?

Thanks for posting.

Here's the video, worth a watch:

I am beginning to discover that inflationary policies are a tried, tested and documented mechanism to render the population of a nation destitute and powerless. Should peak oil have been accurately forecast a while ago, one could see the logic of preparing for a shock of that magnitude in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this eco green AGW stuff is basically a half-baked ruse to try and mitigate this scenario?

I only wish it was.

It seems to be rather more a means of enabling lucrative trading in vapour credits.

It is advancing renewables not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill, oil is abiotic

Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer

By F William Engdahl, September 14, 2007

The good news is that panic scenarios about the world running out of oil anytime soon are wrong. The bad news is that the price of oil is going to continue to rise. Peak Oil is not our problem. Politics is. Big Oil wants to sustain high oil prices. Dick Cheney and friends are all too willing to assist.

On a personal note, I’ve researched questions of petroleum, since the first oil shocks of the 1970’s. I was intrigued in 2003 with something called Peak Oil theory. It seemed to explain the otherwise inexplicable decision by Washington to risk all in a military move on Iraq.

Peak Oil advocates, led by former BP geologist Colin Campbell, and Texas banker Matt Simmons, argued that the world faced a new crisis, an end to cheap oil, or Absolute Peak Oil, perhaps by 2012, perhaps by 2007. Oil was supposedly on its last drops. They pointed to our soaring gasoline and oil prices, to the declines in output of North Sea and Alaska and other fields as proof they were right.

According to Campbell, the fact that no new North Sea-size fields had been discovered since the North Sea in the late 1960’s was proof. He reportedly managed to convince the International Energy Agency and the Swedish government. That, however, does not prove him correct.

Intellectual fossils?

The Peak Oil school rests its theory on conventional Western geology textbooks, most by American or British geologists, which claim oil is a ‘fossil fuel,’ a biological residue or detritus of either fossilized dinosaur remains or perhaps algae, hence a product in finite supply. Biological origin is central to Peak Oil theory, used to explain why oil is only found in certain parts of the world where it was geologically trapped millions of years ago. That would mean that, say, dead dinosaur remains became compressed and over tens of millions of years fossilized and trapped in underground reservoirs perhaps 4-6,000 feet below the surface of the earth. In rare cases, so goes the theory, huge amounts of biological matter should have been trapped in rock formations in the shallower ocean offshore as in the Gulf of Mexico or North Sea or Gulf of Guinea. Geology should be only about figuring out where these pockets in the layers of the earth , called reservoirs, lie within certain sedimentary basins.

An entirely alternative theory of oil formation has existed since the early 1950’s in Russia, almost unknown to the West. It claims conventional American biological origins theory is an unscientific absurdity that is un-provable. They point to the fact that western geologists have repeatedly predicted finite oil over the past century, only to then find more, lots more.

Not only has this alternative explanation of the origins of oil and gas existed in theory. The emergence of Russia and prior of the USSR as the world’s largest oil producer and natural gas producer has been based on the application of the theory in practice. This has geopolitical consequences of staggering magnitude.

Necessity: the mother of invention

In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.

Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?

In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.

If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.

Defying conventional geology

That radically different Russian and Ukrainian scientific approach to the discovery of oil allowed the USSR to develop huge gas and oil discoveries in regions previously judged unsuitable, according to Western geological exploration theories, for presence of oil. The new petroleum theory was used in the early 1990’s, well after the dissolution of the USSR, to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.

Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.

A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”

That Russian geophysics experience in finding oil and gas was tightly wrapped in the usual Soviet veil of state security during the Cold War era, and went largely unknown to Western geophysicists, who continued to teach fossil origins and, hence, the severe physical limits of petroleum. Slowly it began to dawn on some strategists in and around the Pentagon well after the 2003 Iraq war, that the Russian geophysicists might be on to something of profound strategic importance.

If Russia had the scientific know-how and Western geology not, Russia possessed a strategic trump card of staggering geopolitical import. It was not surprising that Washington would go about erecting a “wall of steel”—a network of military bases and ballistic anti-missile shields around Russia, to cut her pipeline and port links to western Europe, China and the rest of Eurasia. Halford Mackinder’s worst nightmare--a cooperative convergence of mutual interests of the major states of Eurasia, born of necessity and need for oil to fuel economic growth--was emerging. Ironically, it was the blatant US grab for the vast oil riches of Iraq and, potentially, of Iran, that catalyzed closer cooperation between traditional Eurasian foes, China and Russia , and a growing realization in western Europe that their options too were narrowing.

The Peak King

Peak Oil theory is based on a 1956 paper done by the late Marion King Hubbert, a Texas geologist working for Shell Oil. He argued that oil wells produced in a bell curve manner, and once their “peak” was hit, inevitable decline followed. He predicted the United States oil production would peak in 1970. A modest man, he named the production curve he invented, Hubbert’s Curve, and the peak as Hubbert’s Peak. When US oil output began to decline in around 1970 Hubbert gained a certain fame.

The only problem was, it peaked not because of resource depletion in the US fields. It “peaked” because Shell, Mobil, Texaco and the other partners of Saudi Aramco were flooding the US market with dirt cheap Middle East imports, tariff free, at prices so low California and many Texas domestic producers could not compete and were forced to shut their wells in.

Vietnam success

While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.

They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s. Few in the West understood why, or bothered to ask.

Dr. J. F. Kenney is one of the only few Western geophysicists who has taught and worked in Russia, studying under Vladilen Krayushkin, who developed the huge Dnieper-Donets Basin. Kenney told me in a recent interview that “alone to have produced the amount of oil to date that (Saudi Arabia’s) Ghawar field has produced would have required a cube of fossilized dinosaur detritus, assuming 100% conversion efficiency, measuring 19 miles deep, wide and high.” In short, an absurdity.

Western geologists do not bother to offer hard scientific proof of fossil origins. They merely assert as a holy truth. The Russians have produced volumes of scientific papers, most in Russian. The dominant Western journals have no interest in publishing such a revolutionary view. Careers, entire academic professions are at stake after all.

Closing the door

The 2003 arrest of Russian Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of Yukos Oil, took place just before he could sell a dominant stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil after a private meeting with Dick Cheney. Had Exxon got the stake they would have control of the world’s largest resource of geologists and engineers trained in the a-biotic techniques of deep drilling.

Since 2003 Russian scientific sharing of their knowledge has markedly lessened. Offers in the early 1990’s to share their knowledge with US and other oil geophysicists were met with cold rejection according to American geophysicists involved.

Why then the high-risk war to control Iraq? For a century US and allied Western oil giants have controlled world oil via control of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Nigeria. Today, as many giant fields are declining, the companies see the state-controlled oilfields of Iraq and Iran as the largest remaining base of cheap, easy oil. With the huge demand for oil from China and now India, it becomes a geopolitical imperative for the United States to take direct, military control of those Middle East reserves as fast as possible. Vice President Dick Cheney, came to the job from Halliburton Corp., the world’s largest oil geophysical services company. The only potential threat to that US control of oil just happens to lie inside Russia and with the now-state-controlled Russian energy giants. Hmmmm.

According to Kenney the Russian geophysicists used the theories of the brilliant German scientist Alfred Wegener fully 30 years before the Western geologists “discovered” Wegener in the 1960’s. In 1915 Wegener published the seminal text, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, which suggested an original unified landmass or “pangaea” more than 200 million years ago which separated into present Continents by what he called Continental Drift.

Up to the 1960’s supposed US scientists such as Dr Frank Press, White House science advisor referred to Wegener as “lunatic.” Geologists at the end of the 1960’s were forced to eat their words as Wegener offered the only interpretation that allowed them to discover the vast oil resources of the North Sea. Perhaps in some decades Western geologists will rethink their mythology of fossil origins and realize what the Russians have known since the 1950’s. In the meantime Moscow holds a massive energy trump card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL - clearly there is no problem with your crack supply :lol:

there's no problem with my crack supply or the worlds oil supply.

'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding

New study shows methane on Saturn's moon Titan not biological

NASA scientists are about to publish conclusive studies showing abundant methane of a non-biologic nature is found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates a new book's contention that oil is not a fossil fuel.

"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biologic origin," reports Hasso Niemann of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a principal NASA investigator responsible for the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer aboard the Cassini-Huygens probe that landed on Titan Jan. 14.

Niemann concludes the methane "must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed."

The studies announced by NASA yesterday will be reported in the Dec. 8 issue of the scientific journal Nature.

"This finding confirms one of the key arguments in 'Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,'" claims co-author Jerome R. Corsi. "We argue that oil and natural gas are abiotic products, not 'fossil fuels' that are biologically created by the debris of dead dinosaurs and ancient forests."

Methane has been synthetically created in the laboratory, Corsi points out, "and now NASA confirms that abiotic methane is abundantly found on Titan."

The realization that hydrocarbons are produced inorganically throughout our solar system was a key insight that led Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold to write his 1998 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Gold wrote:

It would be surprising indeed if the earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a source that biology had taken from another carbon-bearing gas – carbon dioxide – which would have been collected from the atmosphere by photo-synthesizing organisms for manufacture into carbohydrates and then somehow reworked by geology into hydrocarbons. All this, while the planetary bodies bereft of surface life would have received their hydrocarbon gifts by purely abiogenic causes.

Gold wryly noted that he was sure there had not been any "big stagnant swamps on Titan" to produce the biological debris that conventionally trained geologists think was required on Earth to produce oil and natural gas as a "fossil fuel."

"If petroleum and natural gas are abiotic as we maintain in 'Black Gold Stranglehold,'" Corsi commented, "then the 'peak oil' fear that we are going to run out of oil may have been based on a giant misconception."

Paradigms in science change slowly and with great resistance, he noted, "But NASA has given us today incontrovertible evidence that Titan has abundant inorganic methane."

"If the scientists have ruled out that biological processes created methane on Titan, why do petro-geologists still argue that natural gas on Earth is of biological origin?" Corsi asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except in the US it seems?

US hit peak in 1970

And Saudi Arabia. Here we pump dinorthorian quanities of sea water into the oil fields to maintain field pressure. Add to that Co2 injection to get more out. Seems rather pointless really if the depleted oil fields are going to fill up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are houses expensive on Titan?

Space Cadet Developments are doing some great off plan deals right now. Make sure you opt for the premium insulation model as what the Abiotic oil wallies don't tell you is that its -180 degrees C ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And i've not tried crack.

Ok well if thats the case perhaps you can explain the process by which 'abiotic processes' produce meaningful quantities of oil on the earth today.

Im fully aware that Methane is quite abundant in the outer solar system and probably in the primordial earth atmosphere however neither of these environments reflect earth today.

So fire away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space Cadet Developments are doing some great off plan deals right now. Make sure you opt for the premium insulation model as what the Abiotic oil wallies don't tell you is that its -180 degrees C ;)

So its -180 degrees so it exists as a liquid but where did the methane come from, as you will know NASA in their search for life want to read the light spectrum from a planets atmosphere to find methane, and if they find methane thats proof of life, well, when has there ever been life on Titan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How hard can it be to manufacture simple hydro carbons. Oil happened by accident. Stuff died, or rotted (before I get shot down by Mr Barlow) and we drilled it. Surely a bit of human "intelligent design" must prevail? Surely we don't have to go half way across the solar system just to extract hydrocarbons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So its -180 degrees so it exists as a liquid but where did the methane come from, as you will know NASA in their search for life want to read the light spectrum from a planets atmosphere to find methane, and if they find methane thats proof of life, well, when has there ever been life on Titan.

Methane has never been suggested as proof of life in learned circles - only a ******wit would purport that theory

Methane, being that it is predominatly made from hydrogen (the most common element in the universe) is very common in the outer solar system and the earths early atmosphere.

Doesnt mean methane is produced in any meanful quanitiy in the earths interior. In any case you seem to have a problem with organic chemistry - methane isn't oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.