Re: Research Topics

[K Davies <kdavies@igc.org>]

Kevin Chisholm wrote:
> 00ea01c1e716$258ed920$d319059a@kevin">
> Dear KD
>
> The Hubbel Peak does not at all address the issue of actually running out of
> oil. All it does is predict the likelihood of finding new supplies.
>   
  
Right, Hubbert Peak projections mainly address the timing of the peak, and
the shape of the slope/cliff on the other side.
> 00ea01c1e716$258ed920$d319059a@kevin">
>
> When you hit the Hubbel Peak, and the perception is of scarceness, then
> prices will rise, and the consumption will fall. So, the net effect will be
> that while we have less oil available it will always be available, because
> the price will rise, and ensure that it only gets used for the applications
> where it is really required.
>     
    
Prices will rise, the economy will tank, consumption will fall, and prices
will fall.  That's been the historical pattern - most recently repeated in
2001.  Substitution will not necessarily happen in a depressed economy.  Conservation
will happen - if you want to call it that.  We'll also get wars over control
of the remaining energy resources.  We got that in 2001 too.
> 00ea01c1e716$258ed920$d319059a@kevin">
>
> For example, I can easily afford to pay $US300 per gallon for the oil
> required to lubricate my grandfather clock, or my sewing machine.
>       
      
Yes, but you won't pay US$300 per gallon for gasoline.  Prices will rise,
the economy will tank, etc.
> 00ea01c1e716$258ed920$d319059a@kevin">
>
> > See "Forecasting future production from past discovery" by Jean
> > Laherrere at http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/opec2001.pdf .  All
> > the stuff out of EIA comes from fitting projected supply curves to
> > projected demand curves.  They "find" the reserves to provide that
> > supply.  EIA could have given Arthur Anderson lessons in book cooking.
> >
> >           
> Imagine if Arthur Andersen and Co had gotten a suitable contract and applied
> their very creative talents to determining the true total cost of fossil
> fuels and biomass fuels!! This would probably have done more for the Biomass
> Industry than would $100 million in technical research funding.
>           
          
Good point.  But I don't think anyone really wants to know those costs because
they're both way too high.  If authoritative, government-sponsored studies
of the total costs of fossil fuels and the net energy from renewables were
to be done, the stock market would crash and the economy would go permanently
catatonic.  The same applies to studies of oil and gas resources, and that's
why EIA cooks the books.  
          
BTW, EIA admits that they "reverse-engineer" their studies on future energy
supplies.  Go to page 221 in the report referenced below by keying 221 into
the little box at the bottom of the Acrobat Reader window.  Then go to the
bottom of the second paragraph where you will read:
          
"These adjustments to the USGS and MMS estimates are based on non-technical
considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary
to meet projected demand levels." 
          
Annual Energy Outlook 1998 with Projections to 2020 
December 1997 
Energy Information Administration [EIA] 
Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting 
US Department of Energy [DOE]
Washington DC 20585 
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/038398.pdf
          
          
Karl Davies
-- 
www.daviesand.com
42n20,72w39