IEAs chief economists says we are past peak oil

[auroraglacialis]

In the Catalyst programme broadcast last night on Australia’s ABC1 television, the agency’s [IEA] chief economist, Fatih Birol, said “peak oil” was reached in 2006.
He said that he expected oil prices to rise by 30 per cent over the next three years.
...
“The existing [oil] fields are declining so sharply that in order to stay where we are in terms of production levels in the next 25 years, we have to find and develop four new Saudi Arabias,” Dr Birol said.
...
Dr Birol said more oil reserves “might be there”, but access was not.

Oil prices to keep rising as peak production reached in 2006 - The Irish Times - Fri, Apr 29, 2011

... and here comes the post peak oil era... Oil prices this week are at $100-$130 per barrel, the last economic crisis in not yet over, the US already reached 0% interest rates and cannot go lower, Europe has 3-4 states already near bancrupcy - and there are no "4 new Saudi Arabias" to cover the decline as there are no 4 new Earths to cover the demand of 7 billion people living a western lifestyle...

Its not really all that new to anyone talking about peak oil, there was suspicion that it is past us or right ahead, but to see it confirmed by the chief economists of the IEA makes this as official as it probably gets...

[The Man in Black]

Time to take a survival class.

[Isard]

Nah, OPEC's just tightening the supply (again) to raise a little panic/demand. When geologists consider us over peak oil, I'll listen. Until then, its just economics.

[Human No More]

Haven't they been saying that for the past 10 years or so?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Haven't they been saying that for the past 10 years or so?

Iirc they beleive we are currently in peak oil or approaching it. Considering all the places we HAVEN'T drilled I'd say approaching is more likely. But fear sells green energy faster.

[Tsyal Makto]

I wouldn't say it's fear fueling green energy development, more like a desire not to live in a world full of mudpits like the Gulf of Mexico or the Canadian tar sands. But that's just me, we have different philosophies about natural, politics, and life in general.

IMO whether peak oil is economic or physical really doesn't matter. Scarcity, whether by natural limitations or by economic manipulation is still scarcity in the end, and both are capable of reeking havoc on a society. If people don't wish to move away from oil for ecological reasons, then moving away from it for the sake of not being a political puppet to a bunch of Arab gangsters seems like another damn good reason to me. If not to preserve the ability to breath the air, drink the water, and use the soil, then at least some political soverignty.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

I wouldn't say it's fear fueling green energy development, more like a desire not to live in a world full of mudpits like the Gulf of Mexico or the Canadian tar sands. But that's just me, we have different philosophies about natural, politics, and life in general.

IMO whether peak oil is economic or physical really doesn't matter. Scarcity, whether by natural limitations or by economic manipulation is still scarcity in the end, and both are capable of reeking havoc on a society. If people don't wish to move away from oil for ecological reasons, then moving away from it for the sake of not being a political puppet to a bunch of Arab gangsters seems like another damn good reason to me. If not to preserve the ability to breath the air, drink the water, and use the soil, then at least some political soverignty.

They want their money now, not later. They're through trying to "develope" green energy, time to cash the chips! By fearmongering.

[Tsyal Makto]

I think it's more about greenwashing than fearmongering. Instead of trying to create new advancements, all they do is slap the name "green" on existing technology and pass it off as eco-friendly advacements. I see more atempts at hawking "clean coal," low-impact drilling/mining, and consumerism in general than manipulation by fear. I'm not saying it's not out there, I'm just saying it's not as prevelant and powerful as you think it is.

Foreign and socioeconomic policy is where fearmongering is at, not environmental policy.

[Human No More]

The development of things such as clean coal means that the production of particulates and sulphur are reduced, it doesn't mean it is a solution - but still as ~27% of the world's energy, it's a reduction of impact - while it can certainly be seen as an attempt to fight against its eventual phaseout, it doesn't actually hurt anything, quite the opposite in fact.

[Tsyal Makto]

When one factors in the added manufactoring costs (both in dollars and energy), carbon capture, and still remaining pollutants, it's actually not that efficient, and that's not even including the intangible externalities and environmental aftereffects. Anyone else notice that the only people actually claiming clean coal to be clean are the coal companies themselves?

VVV Most independent groups (real independent groups, not "independent groups" financed by energy corps) are with these guys. VVV

[Human No More]

It's not efficient - but it's better than burning the same amount of coal with nothing. It also reduces coal's competitiveness against nuclear due to the cost increase, which is another good thing, as coal use is declining, even if the rate could do with an increase.

[Tsyal Makto]

Too bad those in the industry don't see it that way. They're claiming it is a permanent solution. They're fighting to keep their gravytrain rolling.

[auroraglacialis]

ERM - The IAEA is not some environmental, treehugger organization or greenwashing club. They have been denying the proximity of peak oil for years and even last years report showed that they predict increasing production over the next decades. Geologists have been saying that peak oil is coming for years, too. Some things kind of pushed the date of it more into the future, like tar sands mining or block heated oil extraction or drilling in formerly inaccessible sites, but the reality is that these are not that easy to do on scale and peak oil does not mean that the oil is gone, just that the annual production cannot be increased. So it is only partly a geological event, mostly it is an economical one.

Originally Posted by Human No More

The development of things such as clean coal means that the production of particulates and sulphur are reduced, it doesn't mean it is a solution - but still as ~27% of the world's energy

Only 27% from coal? I am surprised. Where does the rest come from? Nuclear is in the range <10% globally, natural gas and renewables each are also <<10%...
But "clean coal" is pretty much an oxymoron. The sulphur from it does not go away - it is either washed out of the coal at the mining site (ending up in the rivers) or it is scrubbed from the exhaust by adding lime, producing waste that has to be disposed of. That scrubbing decreses the efficiency of these plants though, which means they produce less SO2 but more CO2, so you trade acid rain for global warming

I do not know what they do with sulfur from coal that they actually extract and do not let wash into rivers and streams - I suppose that it is done that way in Europe because I have not head that stories from here.

But for sulfur free oil/gasoline the sulfur that is removed from that goes to heavy oil. And that then is burned by container ships and tankers in international waters, surpassing the sulfur emissions of cars by orders of magnitude.

Oh and a "fun fact" - sulfur emissions actually counteracted global warming for some time. Since they are reduced by scrubbing and "clean coal", global warming sped up. The reason is that sulfur particles increase formation of clouds and thus increase albedo. That is of course not reason to cherish sulfur emissions (though it probably would be much cheaper to just forget about clean coal instead of sending planes into the sky and spray sulfur oxides artificially - just kidding ...).

[Human No More]

It's more then 27% for electricity, but not for total energy use (thanks to oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas).

I didn't say coal is good, and I did say that is IS an attempt to counter the phaseout of fossil fuels, but it's still something if done properly.

As for the actual topic - the IAEA do have vested interests against fossil fuels (fossil fuel industry being the only cheaper energy source, as well as having significant financial and therefore political power), but predictions about peak oil have been thrown around for a long time without much ever coming from them.

[auroraglacialis]

ARGH! - I am SORRY! I did a typo (and no one checked the original article and told me).
It is of course not the IAEA but the IEA (International Energy Agency). I guess I was writing so much about nuclear power lately that I slipped.

So this is the IEA we are talking about, not the IAEA. I hope my arguments make more sense now. Can I change the title of the thread?