Hubbert's Peak. The oil crash.

[corra]

In 1956, Hubbert proposed that fossil fuel production in a given region over time would follow a bell-shaped curve without giving a precise formula; he later used the Hubbert curve, the derivative of the logistic curve, for estimating future production.

Hubbert assumed that after fossil fuel reserves (oil reserves, coal reserves, and natural gas reserves) are discovered, production at first increases approximately exponentially, as more extraction commences and more efficient facilities are installed. At some point, a peak output is reached, and production begins declining until it approximates an exponential decline.


Hubbert, in his 1956 paper predicted that the United states would peak in 1970, he was laughed at by nay sayers and lost most of the credibility he had.
however. 1970 came and USA peaked.
Today USA has 2% of the world's crude oil deposits yet produce 8% of the worlds oil. However they consume 25% of the world's produced oil.

India and China are massive consumers on the rise. China replaced japan as the second biggest importer of oil a few years back and shows no signs of slowing down, quite the opposite. 10% annual growth in economy which will mean that in 7 years it will double.

Here is the problem. The world needs more oil then it can produce, the need will increase and the supply will decrease.
What will follow in the decline of oil is panic, famine and wars.
the oil peak has been discussed by the best paid, most respected scientists the world over and while some of them say the peak came in december 2006, some say it may be as much as a few years left before it happens.

I have included links that will give you a cleared understanding of the events to come and the impact it will have for you in the times ahead.


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ : Extensive research thesis. by Matt Savinar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak : Basic description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil : Basic description.

http://torrentspy.com/torrent/218669/The_End_of_Suburbia_Oil_Depletion_and_the_Collapse _of_the_American_Dream_2004
this is a documentary i would recommend watching, it covers what will happen to the American society once Hubbert's peak is in terminal decline.

http://torrentspy.com/torrent/1159675/A_Crude_Awakening_The_Oil_Crash_Xvid_AC3
This is another documentary that should be watched. It covers most of the Hubbert's peak information available at this date.

[russ_watters]

What will follow in the decline of oil is panic, famine and wars. Why is that necessarily true?

In any case, there is a pretty basic flaw in the theory, and that is the fact that in it's current form, it can't adequately deal with the economic and technological complexities/advancements of certain industries. Oil is not just a single product from a single type of source. There are many types/grades and sources and each has it's own unique technical challenges. Every time the price increases over a certain threshold or technology changes, the old curve becomes invalid. For example, Canada sits atop a reserve twice the size of the Middle East's, but most is not currently economically viable. But if price increases much more or technology changes, it will be.

[JasonRox]

Why is that necessarily true?

In any case, there is a pretty basic flaw in the theory, and that is the fact that in it's current form, it can't adequately deal with the economic and technological complexities/advancements of certain industries. Oil is not just a single product from a single type of source. There are many types/grades and sources and each has it's own unique technical challenges. Every time the price increases over a certain threshold or technology changes, the old curve becomes invalid. For example, Canada sits atop a reserve twice the size of the Middle East's, but most is not currently economically viable. But if price increases much more or technology changes, it will be.

I'm a Canadian, and I'm somewhat against extracting all of the oil in Alberta. First, we have a terrible free trade agreement with the US. I have no idea what the politicians were popping when they made that agreement. Second, it will destroy the surrounding environment completely.

The only purpose I can accept taking the oil out of Alberta is to help make the transition from oil to other alternative energies smoother and NOT to continue on with our wreckless use of oil.

[Ivan Seeking]

At some point the price of fuel makes alternatives competitive, and one would expect that the market prices for petro should seek equilibrium as this occurs. But in the mean time it could be a very bumpy road. What worries me most are transients in market prices due to political problems, storms, etc. This could cause some real problems economically. Some of the gloom and doomers talk about spikes as high as $15 per gallon for gasoline as a possiblity, at times.

[corra]

For example, Canada sits atop a reserve twice the size of the Middle East's, but most is not currently economically viable. But if price increases much more or technology changes, it will be.

this is a quote from Matt Savinar.
"What About the Oil Sands in Canada and the Oil Shale in the American West?

The good news is that we have a massive amount of untapped "non conventional" oil located in the oil sands up in Canada. The bad news is that, unlike conventional sources of oil, oil derived from these oil sands is extremely financially and energetically intensive to extract. Whereas conventional oil has enjoyed a rate of "energy return on energy invested" (EROEI) of about 30 to 1, the oil sands rate of return hovers around 1.5 to 1. This means that we would have to expend 20 times as much energy to generate the same amount of oil from the oil sands as we do from conventional sources of oil.

More optimistic reports anticipate 4 million barrels per day of oil coming from the oil sands by 2020. Even if the optimists are correct, 4 million barrels per day isn't that much oil when you consider our colossal and ever-growing demand in conjunction with the small amount of time we have left before the global peak:

-We currently need 83.5 million barrels per day.

-We are projected to need 120 million barrels per day by
2020.

-We will be losing over 1 million barrels per day of production
per year, every year, once we hit the backside of the
global oil production curve.

-The general consensus among now disinterested scientists
is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest.

[Ronnin]

We are just doomed, please refer to the bike thread. :rolleyes: Technology will find a way and if it doesn't we humans are just going to have to change the way we go about our day to day business. BTW, I havn't noticed any of the refineries here closing up shop, so don't panic too much just yet.

[russ_watters]

-The general consensus among now disinterested scientists
is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest. Who get's to say what constitutes a "disinterested" scientist is (whatever that is and assuming that's even a good thing...)? How "disinterested" is someone selling a book anyway? This person is not The Authority on this subject. He may be right, but he certainly doesn't represent the majority viewpoint. See graphs here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5374852 Energy analyst and historian Daniel Yergin has heard these arguments before. He counts five different periods when the world feared it was running out of oil. The first was in the 1880s. Such fears usually gain traction when oil prices are high. But each time, Yergin says, the dire warnings have proved premature.

"The last time before this time was in the 1970s, when people thought we were going to fall off the oil mountain and live in an age of permanent shortage. Since then, world supplies have increased 60 percent. I don't see why we're at the end of technology now, or why it would be finished now," Yergin says. I was in elementary school in the '80s and remember people predicting back then that we had 20 years left before oil was gone. This is a common doom-and-gloom scenario that I just don't buy into. Yes, production will peak and yes it will fall after that - but it isn't here yet and it won't be nearly so dramatic when it is.

[corra]

I know the thesis is long but it is full of grim facts, so if you actually read it you would have noticed this.

"If the actions - rather than the words - of the oil business's major players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned faster than new ones are being built."

also you would have found this link embedded in the thesis.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227
in which it confirms that statement.

also i find this statement to be intresting.

"In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and refinery expansion, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:"

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;
April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;
December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;
October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;
November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;
September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;
February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;
March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;
April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;
July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;
April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;
June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;
July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal
June 2006: Andarko proposes buying Kerr McGee

[corra]

Who get's to say what constitutes a "disinterested" scientist is (whatever that is and assuming that's even a good thing...)?

I was in elementary school in the '80s and remember people predicting back then that we had 20 years left before oil was gone. This is a common doom-and-gloom scenario that I just don't buy into. Yes, production will peak and yes it will fall after that - but it isn't here yet and it won't be nearly so dramatic when it is.

Disintrested scientists are a term for scientists not affiliated with politics.
not democrats, not republicans etc.

well what they said back then could very well be true matt.
it is now 2007 thats 27 years since 1980. some say we peaked in december in 2006.
it does not matter if it was in 2006 or if it is this year or the next..
It will not even matter if its 2010. because the world will not react before it is already here and then all hell will break loose.

increased gas prices is just the tip of the mountain. Everything that is high tech today has some use of oil. plastic, cosmetics, transport and medicine, the list goes on and on.

[Chi Meson]

That optimistic "Rosy outlook" by Yergin of CERA might be an industry-biased, right-leaning wishful thinking, but then again...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901672.html

Here's what he has to say on the topic in that "right-wing rag" The Washington Post. Yes that's ironic sarcasm, you guys still don't know me?

Regardless, some analysts say we are already past peak production; the most optimistic outlook puts the peak 20 years hence. I do not think disaster will ensue, but there is gonna be some kind of change, and travel will be very expensive.

[corra]

Regardless, some analysts say we are already past peak production; the most optimistic outlook puts the peak 20 years hence. I do not think disaster will ensue, but there is gonna be some kind of change, and travel will be very expensive.

I belive so too, air travel will be eliminated for all but the super rich.
car pools will be for those with life savings accounts.
oil heated houses will be a thing of the past.
Un-employment in america where the car industry directly and indirectly gives jobs to 1/5 of the work force is goin to soar.

Not to mention the jam the american's have put themselves in with their suburbs. millions of homes miles away from where they work.
It's going to get ugly unless politicians makes some tough choices right now.
Extremely un-popular choices.

what do you think the Americans will say when their leaders tell them that suv's have to be abolished and that should ride with their neighbors to the city for work each day. That is NOT going to happen.
While Europeans have well developed railway systems they can fall back on the americans do not. what they have is 6 lane interstate highways.

[Integral]

In any case, there is a pretty basic flaw in the theory, and that is the fact that in it's current form, it can't adequately deal with the economic and technological complexities/advancements of certain industries. Oil is not just a single product from a single type of source. There are many types/grades and sources and each has it's own unique technical challenges. Every time the price increases over a certain threshold or technology changes, the old curve becomes invalid. For example, Canada sits atop a reserve twice the size of the Middle East's, but most is not currently economically viable. But if price increases much more or technology changes, it will be.

Yes, production will peak and yes it will fall after that - but it isn't here yet and it won't be nearly so dramatic when it is.

russ.
your entire point in this thread is unclear. You seem to say that thru technology we can avoid peak oil and that even if peak oil should be a reality that it well have no effect. You are correct that the actual point of peak oil will come and go with no real noticable effecfs. However, I do not understand how you can deny the long term effects. Even thou you may not want to admit it there is a finite amount of oil on this earth, this means that at some point in time there will not be enough oil to supply all of the demands. Your response seems to be "don't worry be happy" That sure seems like something a diry hippy would say. (hey if you can put words in the mouth of a non existant sub culture why can't I?)
If you indeed believe that a ever diminshing oil supply is not a critical matter..well, You need to extract your head from the sand.

[russ_watters]

Jeez, the book is even self-published and the author has no background in oil or economics. This is just trash.

Here are some people with more reasonable qualifications who support the theory, but the problems are obvious: Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 2000, but the date was pushed back to 2007 and later to 2010. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=world+oil+production

The year the organization formed, they predicted peak oil that year and have since pushed it back twice! That's a truly spectacular predictive failure.

[Chi Meson]

I'm a Canadian, and I'm somewhat against extracting all of the oil in Alberta. First, we have a terrible free trade agreement with the US. I have no idea what the politicians were popping when they made that agreement. Second, it will destroy the surrounding environment completely.

The only purpose I can accept taking the oil out of Alberta is to help make the transition from oil to other alternative energies smoother and NOT to continue on with our wreckless use of oil.

"reckless"

Otherwise I agree with Jason here. If ever there were a good argument for the necessity of environmental laws, the oil-sands of Alberta is it. You know it. YOu don't have to lean left or right to acknowledge that unchecked industry would strip 1/4 of the province of Alberta as quickly as possible to maximize profit for those who are currently living. That's the way humans are.

A slow stripping of the oil sands (over centuries) will provide at the very least for the "other" petrolium needs (plastics and lubricants, I'm thinking).

I'm convinced nuclear fission will make a comeback. It will be the only choice at some point, at least until fusion is figured out.

Hopefully, we'll have fusion figured out

[Integral]

Jeez, the book is even self-published and the author has no background in oil or economics. This is just trash.

Here are some people with more reasonable qualifications who support the theory, but the problems are obvious: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLR_enUS213US213&q=world+oil+production

The year the organization formed, they predicted peak oil that year and have since pushed it back twice! That's a truly spectacular predictive failure.


So you deny that peak oil will occur?

[russ_watters]

your entire point in this thread is unclear. You seem to say that thru technology we can avoid peak oil and that even if peak oil should be a reality that it well have no effect. You are correct that the actual point of peak oil will come and go with no real noticable effecfs. There will, of course, be a peak. What I have a problem with is:

1. Predictions of a peak by that has already come and gone are often wrong the year they come out (from my previous post). These predictions are often made by alarmists with an adjenda (selling a book) and no personal qualifications to be doing such research.

2. Predictions of a spectacular decline in society are based-on....what? Our $70 a barrel oil is really destroying the economy right now, isn't it....? If liberals believed their eyes, they'd be scratching their heads in confusion over why the economy is charging-along right now. However, I do not understand how you can deny the long term effects. They are predictions without basis, typically made by people with a clear personal adjenda. Your response seems to be "don't worry be happy" That sure seems like something a diry hippy would say.(hey if you can put words in the mouth of a non existant sub culture why can't I?) I'm not sure how you can say the hippie movement didn't exist, but in any case, I guess I'm an optomist. People have long been predicting (and profiting from the predictions) of the fall of civilization, and it hasn't happened. Do you remember when Clinton used the Y2K disaster to sieze dictatorial power? Oh, wait, that conspiracy theory didn't happen either! If you indeed believe that a ever diminshing oil supply is not a critical matter..well, You need to extract your head from the sand. I am the one who a couple of years ago posted an energy plan, which got much discussion, proposing a crash development program for both nuclear fission and fusion power. I am in favor of a radical restructuring of our energy policy. Hmmm - now that I think of it, what sort of people oppose such things....?

[Mk]

I'm not too worried about it and agree with russ on everything.

And this just feels like fearmongering (that already passed it's expiration date). Paraphrasing Andre in a post in Earth:

This way we have seen comic books, backmasking, day care sex abuse, "rock 'n' roll" music, violence in video games, anti-semitism, mutual assured destruction, nuclear waste et al, nuclear meltdown scenarios, the coming ice age, the population bomb, the asteroid collision, the clash of the civilizations, radon, microwaves and power lines, Y2K, and now it's called global warming with all it's extremities. Notice in each situation, it is always some threat to everybody, whether it be America, the world, or all life. It is always an inevitable threat, and cannot be seen, heard, felt, smelled, as it is coming.

I do not understand how you can deny the long term effects.
Denier denier! How can you deny the truth??

Catastrophe catastrophe catastrophe! The world will end! THE END IS NEIGH!!

[corra]

Politicians that want to be re-elected oppose such things, because voters do not want to inconvinience themselves.
the do not wish to change their old dependencies because they are being fed lies. Hopefully if the puplic was aware that we are facing terminal decline in oil production. years from now (not decades) they would demand change to keep the gears of civilization rolling. massive research into alternative energy sources that could be developed and relieve oil as suply dwindled.
Sadly, the general public will not know before the decline is upon them.
There will be anger, desperation and regret.

The oil will not last forever, in fact we will never have more oil then we do now. This is something the general public does not know.
It is something that oil companies know however and that is why there was a massive downsizing in oil prospecting and a desperate tech race to try to make deep hard to get oil out of the ground while still being profitable.

[corra]

Here is something you should know.
A King Hubbert the man who in 1956 predicted the american oil peak would happen in 1970 (which it did) also predicted that the world would peak in 2000.

He did this by calculating the number and sizes of oilfields being discovered over time and the frequency of their discovery and accurately predicted the peak of america 14 years before it happened.
He did the exact same thing on a world wide scale and came to the conclusion that it would happen at the turn of the century.
However there was a political incident in 1970 where iran and saudi arabia boicotted oil exports from their countries because they had issues with america (iran) and israel (saudi arabia)
This quadrupled prices at the gas station, and leading scientists on the subject extrapolated that we gained 5-10 years on the hubbert's peak model due to the decline in oil usage world wide due to the panic.

That puts the oil peak at 2005-2010.
It is happening right now and we have front row seats.

Most if not all goverments in the west know this for a fact.
Ask yourself 1 important question. Would Bush take all the heat he is getting for staying in Iraq if there was no oil there?
Iraq has the biggest remaining deposit of good quality oil left in the world.

[Integral]

Whether peak oil has already occurred or will occur in the next 30yrs is in material, the fact is we need to find a reliable energy source to replace it. If we delay in finding this replacement until the effects of a declining oil supply are felt, it will be to late. It is imperative that we begin weaning ourselves from fossil fuel supplies NOW. Call if fear mongering if you wish, I call it common sense. We must use our ever declining supply of oil wisely as there is no easy path forward without it. Would not it be nice if we could free ourselves of fossil fuel supplies and actually have some oil left in the ground.


As for fusion, talk about pie in the sky! They have been 10yrs from break even a lot longer then they have been 10 yrs from peak oil. I have come to believe that the only possible fusion reactor will found to be accomplished by suspending a large mass of Hydrogen in space and letting gravity do its thing... we call them stars.


And yes Russ I deny that the straw man hippy you love to attack has ever existed nor does it exist now. The original hippy was all about screwing and smoking pot. They buried the last hippy in 1973, all since then is media hype. Suckered you in didn't they.

I sincerely wish that you would quit side tracking this potentially interesting thread with your irrelevant objections to a specific date.

[Mk]

Whether peak oil has already occurred or will occur in the next 30yrs is in material, the fact is we need to find a reliable energy source to replace it. If we delay in finding this replacement until the effects of a declining oil supply are felt, it will be to late. It is imperative that we begin weaning ourselves from fossil fuel supplies NOW.
Hey, I think a lot of us are all about the nuclear.

[corra]

Hey, I think a lot of us are all about the nuclear.

Another person who comments about something he has not even read.
If you had bothered to read the presentation, or even the documentaries you can download you would realize this...

To cover oil energy in the form of nuclear energy you would need 10.000 of the biggest possible plants. 10 THOUSAND!!
Not to mention that we would run out of uranium in 20 years tops.

That is how energy compact oil is.
Besides, you cant drive around with a mini nuclear reactor in your trunk to power you car.
You cant make medicine, plastic or fertilizers with it either.

[G01]

The way I see it, we will have to go nuclear. I don't even think were going to choose to. Its just going to happen, because its going to be the easiest way out.

[G01]

To cover oil energy in the form of nuclear energy you would need 10.000 of the biggest possible plants. 10 THOUSAND!!
Not to mention that we would run out of uranium in 20 years tops.

Wait a minute.........This doesn't seem right. Uranium contains much more usable energy per gram as far as I've heard....

[corra]

Wait a minute.........This doesn't seem right. Uranium contains much more usable energy per gram as far as I've heard....

yes, but there is laughably less uranium then oil in the world.
It is one of the most dangerous and coveted resources on earth.
we know how much we have and where it is.

[Integral]

We will need to build some nuc plants to provide a bridge to a real solution. Nucs, are a bandaid not a solution. We need a sustainable realiabe source of energy to replace oil, who ever can develope this source will be the next Rockfellers and Getty's.

[corra]

Yes, there will be built new nuclear power plants, coal, solar, geothermal, wind and more but it will also be too little too late.
We will try to compensate but it is not going to be enough.
When the oil production peaks and it will (soon if not already)
there will be massive changes around the world.

- Oil based chemicals are responsible for the green revolution that saw major production increases in food. quote: "the topsoil in america is basically a sponge that we pour chemicals and nutrients onto to grow our food"

- Air travel will become to expensive for the common man.

- Suburbia and sprawls of population along the interstate is spread too thin to make public transportation feasible or profitable for trains and even buses.

- The day of the 4000 mile caesar salad will be over, not to mention the toilet seats from china.

- Un-employment will soar as the automobil industry crashes, esspesially in america where 1 out of 5 work for or indirectly for the automobil industry.

- The American dollar will crash along with the mexican peso and all currencies that are dependent on oil.

- Recession will come once the stock market realize that the oil which has been the backbone of most companies on the exchange is no longer cheap.
(This will result in a full blow depression since the oil production will never go up again due to the fact that there is less and less oil)

- Wars over the remaining oil deposits left on the globe is likely, if not neccesary.

- riots and mass demonstrations following the massive un-employment on the horizon.

- World wide panic. Humans have never been particulary good at adapting to sudden social changes. There will be a sense of feeling screwed over once these changes hit the average person. Who will be to blame? If anyone believes that the general public will say "oh, so we are to blame for the sudden lack of oil..." they are living in a dream world.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it could eventually be that bad if we do nothing, but there many dedicated people working to solve the problem.

The only real enemies are denial and despair. The rest is just a problem to be solved.

[Chi Meson]

If, just if, we are at peak oil production right now, that means we are going to be on the down slope of oil availability. Oil will not drop to zero overnight. We have 50 to 100 years of diminishing supply to get us through (including the yucky high sulfur oil that requires more refining for less usable and dirtier fuel). that means prices will rise as supply drops. Demand will decrease as soon as people find it is not worth their while to spend so much on fuel. Our lives will change as oil availability changes.

If humans are nothing else, we are adaptable. We have recently adapted to cheap energy. We will adapt to the loss of that cheep energy. We will in many ways revert to more agrarian economies (than they are now) as long distance cheap travel goes away.

This is one reason I'm not making such a big noise over global warming--If it's our fault or not, it's happening, we'll get used to it. If it is our fault, well we're just not gonna stop burning until it's all burnt.

We are in for a change, but I do not agree that the change will be as cataclysmic as some predictions. Unemployment, deflation, wars, yes; these things will happen, but they would happen regardless, wouldn't they. Seems that humans, as well as being adaptable, also love to kill each other.

The hatred is palpable, even in this thread.

[corra]

There are many ways this could be played out chi meson.
Let me use America as an example.

Best case scenario:
Politicians make tough choices and informs the American population of the problem right now. Americans although unwilling at first until they realize the seriousness of the problem start to make the changes they need to make to keep their living conditions the way they are.
This would include major changes in their living arrangements. such as:
More car pools to and from work.
Living closer to where they work.
Tax increase and welfare cuts to invest in alternative fuel and energy rescources.
these are just a few of the many things needed to make the transition.

Most likely scenario:
The general population will not be informed before the politician realize that they are already on their way down from hubbert's peak and the oil and rescources desperately needed to fund and develop new needed technologies will instead be funneled into trying to hold on to the livestyle they are used to. The public will vote for the politicians that are best at saying "follow me and everything will be great"
- Recession
- Un-employment
- Flare ups in racism, religious cults and witch hunts as people look for someone to blame.

Worst case scenario:
Total breakdown of society as the goverment try to hold on to the now poor masses.
Rescource wars to control the remaining oil suplies in the world. most of which lies in the middle east.
Anything can happen once panic and breakdown of major social services break down.


The best and worst case scenario's are not likely to happen but they could.

[Chi Meson]

There are many ways this could be played out chi meson.
Let me use America as an example.

Best case scenario:
Politicians make tough choices and informs the American population of the problem right now. Americans although unwilling at first until they realize the seriousness of the problem start to make the changes they need to make to keep their living conditions the way they are.
This would include major changes in their living arrangements. such as:
More car pools to and from work.
Living closer to where they work.
Tax increase and welfare cuts to invest in alternative fuel and energy rescources.
these are just a few of the many things needed to make the transition.

Most likely scenario:
The general population will not be informed before the politician realize that they are already on their way down from hubbert's peak and the oil and rescources desperately needed to fund and develop new needed technologies will instead be funneled into trying to hold on to the livestyle they are used to. The public will vote for the politicians that are best at saying "follow me and everything will be great"
- Recession
- Un-employment
- Flare ups in racism, religious cults and witch hunts as people look for someone to blame.

Worst case scenario:
Total breakdown of society as the goverment try to hold on to the now poor masses.
Rescource wars to control the remaining oil suplies in the world. most of which lies in the middle east.
Anything can happen once panic and breakdown of major social services break down.


The best and worst case scenario's are not likely to happen but they could.

I see no evidence that your middle description must be the "most likely scenario." Our difference of opinion stems (I believe) from two disagreements. One: I am less cynical than you regarding human nature in general. Two: I believe the crisis will have a a much more gradual onset than perhaps you believe.

One thing we probably agree on: we will both live to see who was right.

[Mk]

Our difference of opinion stems (I believe) from two disagreements. One: I am less cynical than you regarding human nature in general. Two: I believe the crisis will have a a much more gradual onset than perhaps you believe.

One thing we probably agree on: we will both live to see who was right.
Definitely. And russ is right!

[corra]

I hope Russ is right.
That does not mean that i think it will play out that way.

I do not have much faith in human kind, that much is true.
We have religious fanatics, mass murderers, dictators, sadists and ALOT of ignorant people that are too self centered to look beyond themselves.

The group of people who strive to learn new things and make the world a better place is grossly outnumbered.

[Chi Meson]

Definitely. And russ is right!

Again, I disagree.

[corra]

Well off course he is wrong about this, he thinks there will be no consequences.
that is as integral said a "head in the sand" attitude but for him to be right we would need to perfect fusion tech in a matter of years before the oil decline make it impossible.

So as i said, i hope russ is right.

[Chi Meson]

I merely think it is absurd for anyone to be so certain about their own abilities (or other people's abilities) to predict the future. Such certainties reveal an opinion clouded by ideology rather than objective analysis.

Continuous use of pejorative exclamations also undermine the validity of one's comments. Unfortunately, that is the type of speak we seem to be trained to hear.

[corra]

It seems obvious that this topic does not warrant your attention for long so i will let this thread slip quietly below the bottom of this forum page and into oblivion.

My next post in this thread (unless there are new questions people might have)
will be "i told you so" once enough signs have become clear that even you might believe it.

[corra]

well it seems i did not have to wait all that long.
wish it gave me some pleasure but it does not.

i told you so.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/09/oilshortage070709.html#skip300x250

[apeiron]

Peak oil update. Some recent good articles. Never say you weren't warned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/21/peak-oil-summit

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Tipping%20Point.pdf

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51764

http://heinberg.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/214-life-after-growth/

http://www.feasta.org/events/the_new_emergency/bios.htm

[brushman]

The real problem here is our reliance on instable countries for oil. Countries such as those in the middle east have far too much control over our economy, and should one day their hate for us exceed their greed, the U.S. will be in trouble.

The "oil shortage crisis" is completely exaggerated, and will only be a problem in the long term (90+ years).

We get the false impression that our oil supply will be gone soon because middle eastern oil monopolies control supply, and thus, control prices. They accidently cut supply too much shooting up prices, and it sends everyone into a panic.

Ideally (for the oil monopolies) they want to keep supply at a level that maximizes profit, and keep's everyone's eyes on oil and not alternatives.

From the U.S. perspective, what needs to be done is more local oil drilling (especially off-shore) and research on alternatives. This is for the benefit of the short, and long term.

[apeiron]

The "oil shortage crisis" is completely exaggerated, and will only be a problem in the long term (90+ years).

From the U.S. perspective, what needs to be done is more local oil drilling (especially off-shore) and research on alternatives. This is for the benefit of the short, and long term.

This is an opinion. Can you back it up with some facts?

Even the most optimistic world agency is not talking about 90 years for an oil crunch. Although the optimists of course say the alternatives (despite their eroei's - energy returned on energy invested) will gallop to the rescue.

The set of readings should show that even the optimists are struggling to remain so now.

[brushman]

This is an opinion. Can you back it up with some facts?

Actual supply statistics are polluted by corrupt oil monopolies so it's hard to judge how much oil there is exactly.

You must also take into consideration that new oil fields are being discovered, and new technology is allowing us new ways to mine and manufacture the oil.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59502

[apeiron]

From your link, I was keeping a straight face until I read this at the end.....

Finally, as WND recently reported, new scientific discoveries have produced important evidence supporting the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.

Scientists have recently reported abiotic liquid hydrocarbons exuding from the mantle of the earth in fissures such as the Lost City Hydrothermal Field on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and abundant abiotic liquid methane found on Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, as found by the Cassini-Huygens mission jointly launched by NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency.

Traditional petro-geologists have maintained that oil is biological in origin, arising from organic material deposited in sedimentary soil.

The organic theory of the origin of oil has served as a logical underpinning of the tautology at the heart of the peak oil theory.

Only a finite amount of biological material was deposited in sedimentary soil capable of forming oil, so there has to be a finite amount of oil.

The abiotic theory suggests oil is formed naturally in the mantle of the earth by chemical reactions such as are described in the Fisher-Tropsch equations the Nazis developed to make synthetic oil from coal prior to World War II.

The abiotic theory would suggest more deep-earth discoveries of oil should be forthcoming, especially with new technology to find and recover cost-effectively offshore oil.


And other Shell executives had other views even in 2008.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/wef/article3248484.ece

"Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand."

Jeroen van der Veer, CEO, Royal Dutch Shell

[russ_watters]

apeiron, I don't see in any of your links a statement that we've passed peak oil and your 4th link down (which is from a Peak Oil newsletter, so can be considered to be on the pessimistic side) says that production will likely start to drop in 2014 and in 2015 will be between 20 and 35% higher than it is today. How do you reconcile that with the OP's claim (in post #5) that: The general consensus among now disinterested scientists
is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest. ....and what I quoted in post #13: Campbell's critics, like Michael C. Lynch, argue that his research data is sloppy. They point to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by the year 2000, but the date was pushed back to 2007 and later to 2010. Seeing as how 3 years later, the date has been pushed back another 4 years, what does this mean for my general point that peak oil claims tend to be overblown.

[Galteeth]

I know the thesis is long but it is full of grim facts, so if you actually read it you would have noticed this.

"If the actions - rather than the words - of the oil business's major players provide the best gauge of how they see the future, then ponder the following. Crude oil prices have doubled since 2001, but oil companies have increased their budgets for exploring new oil fields by only a small fraction. Likewise, U.S. refineries are working close to capacity, yet no new refinery has been constructed since 1976. And oil tankers are fully booked, but outdated ships are being decommissioned faster than new ones are being built."

also you would have found this link embedded in the thesis.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227
in which it confirms that statement.

also i find this statement to be intresting.

"In addition to lowering their investments in oil exploration and refinery expansion, oil companies have been merging as though the industry is living on borrowed time:"

December 1998: BP and Amoco merge;
April 1999: BP-Amoco and Arco agree to merge;
December 1999: Exxon and Mobil merge;
October 2000: Chevron and Texaco agree to merge;
November 2001: Phillips and Conoco agree to merge;
September 2002: Shell acquires Penzoil-Quaker State;
February 2003: Frontier Oil and Holly agree to merge;
March 2004: Marathon acquires 40% of Ashland;
April 2004: Westport Resources acquires Kerr-McGee;
July 2004: Analysts suggest BP and Shell merge;
April 2005: Chevron-Texaco and Unocal merge;
June 2005: Royal Dutch and Shell merge;
July 2005: China begins trying to acquire Unocal
June 2006: Andarko proposes buying Kerr McGee

The lack of construction of new refineries in the US is a cost issue due to environmental regulations. Like most outsourcing, when local regulations make it cheaper to do something elsewhere, it is done there.

The mergers do not indicate anything unusual. This trend is similar in the corporate world across multiple industries (just think of how consolidated the media has become, for instance). I might connect the lack of investment in increasing supply to a reduction in competition. More mergers=less competition. Less competition=less pressure to bring down prices.

Not to say that oil is not a more or less finite resource, just that these points you made, gauging supply by industry behavior, don't make alot of sense to me.

[rewebster]

I got a feeling the period from 1950 to about 2050 will be called the Golden era of hydrocarbons.

Hopefully new technologies will emerge, but I agree that $15 a gallon gas be come in about 20 years or less.

[apeiron]

apeiron, I don't see in any of your links a statement that we've passed peak oil and your 4th link down (which is from a Peak Oil newsletter, so can be considered to be on the pessimistic side) says that production will likely start to drop in 2014 and in 2015 will be between 20 and 35% higher than it is today. How do you reconcile that with the OP's claim (in post #5) that: ....and what I quoted in post #13: Seeing as how 3 years later, the date has been pushed back another 4 years, what does this mean for my general point that peak oil claims tend to be overblown.

This was a selection of mainstream views, so not the extreme pessimists. My point was that even the mainstream is now voicing concern and shortening their time frames (you will be aware of the IEA's changed tune).

And I've spoken to plenty of scientists who feel peak was hit in 2006 most likely (though we have another few years for peak liquids - oil and gas).

Either way - 2006 or 2015 - it makes no difference to the essential fact that the era of cheap oil is passing fast.

I had a chance to chat about the issues with the US undersecretary for alternative energy recently. She says she wants to shorten the US "20 percent wind power by 2030" by 10 years. So a reasonable urgency there.

And today, I was talking to a US climate scientist who shifted to New Zealand (like me) because of peak oil (and also because Bush got re-elected, admittedly).

So overblown or not, a few of us are reacting. With luck, we will be made to look fools.

[russ_watters]

This was a selection of mainstream views, so not the extreme pessimists. I'm not sure that a peak oil newsletter really qualifies as a mainstream view.
And I've spoken to plenty of scientists who feel peak was hit in 2006 most likely (though we have another few years for peak liquids - oil and gas). It wasn't. How long ago did you speak with them? Either way - 2006 or 2015 - it makes no difference to the essential fact that the era of cheap oil is passing fast. Or 2020. It makes big difference in what will happen over the next few decades if we hit it in 2006 vs 2020. The maturing of electric cars and a resurgence of nuclear power are two factors that will have a fairly significant impact on our overall energy landscape over the next 10 years and it will make a big difference if the peak of the current economic cycle (in 5-7 years) sees $5 gas or $20 gas.
I had a chance to chat about the issues with the US undersecretary for alternative energy recently. She says she wants to shorten the US "20 percent wind power by 2030" by 10 years. So a reasonable urgency there. Would be nice if the urgency was focused in a more reasonable direction, like nuclear power, but ok - that's nice.

And today, I was talking to a US climate scientist who shifted to New Zealand (like me) because of peak oil (and also because Bush got re-elected, admittedly). You moved from the US to New Zealand because of Bush and peak oil? Really?

One thing I will say for peak oil: the risk (consequences plus odds) is greater than global warming, particluarly over the next 20-40 years.

[apeiron]

I'm not sure that a peak oil newsletter really qualifies as a mainstream view.


We don't live in a world of perfect information. We all need to make our own assessments on this one.

At least you are aware of the issue and have some views. Many have not even heard there is a peak oil issue.

As for nuclear reactors taking up the slack, there is also peak uranium to think about of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379

The easy answer then is that something else like fusion will be the next fix.

And all these technological fixes may indeed come to pass.

As you say, the big question at the moment really is whether we will have time to put in the big new infrastructure - wind turbines all over the landscape and geothermal for NZ - before the economy collapses.


You moved from the US to New Zealand because of Bush and peak oil? Really?

No, that was the person I was talking to. I moved from London.

[rewebster]

I wouldn't doubt that in the next 20-30 years there will be geothermal drill sites in places where the geothermal activity isn't near the surface---where there will be 8-10 mile drill holes to tap high heat resources.

[apeiron]

I wouldn't doubt that in the next 20-30 years there will be geothermal drill sites in places where the geothermal activity isn't near the surface---where there will be 8-10 mile drill holes to tap high heat resources.

Of course current projects have run into problems......

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/geothermal-power/index.html?scp=1&sq=hot%20rock%20geothermal%20earthquake&st=cse

[apeiron]

The problem with official estimates of course is whether we can trust those in charge to tell us the truth...


The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency


And then when mainstream figures like Sir David King (UK Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Government Office of Science, 2000 to 2007) sound the alarm bells, do we just conclude they have just lost their heads, gone over to the other side?


The report also suggests that the current oil reserve estimates should be downgraded from between 1150-1350 billion barrels to between 850-900 billion barrels, based on recent research.

http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/world-oil-reserves-at-tipping-point/

[apeiron]

Here is a good account of the kind of high level realistic discussions now taking place. Rather than people shouting 'yes it is', 'no it isn't', here we have a search for what can be known and a consideration of the range of uncertainty.

http://transitionculture.org/2010/03/24/government-%E2%80%98peak-oil-summit%E2%80%99-starts-the-process-of-government-acknowledging-peak-oil/

[edward]

Actual supply statistics are polluted by corrupt oil monopolies so it's hard to judge how much oil there is exactly.

You must also take into consideration that new oil fields are being discovered, and new technology is allowing us new ways to mine and manufacture the oil.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59502

World Net daily is at the bottom of the barrel as a reliable reference. It is the home of the extreme right and about every conspiracy theory that they come up with.

Most of the content is outrageous., as seen below

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95917

[apeiron]

Doom Soon is my honest & reluctant prediction, if we get whooped by an asteroid in this transition phase it may well be game over mankind

I think you are erring on the optimistic side with the date of collapse myself! 2030 is the bottleneck decade for peak oil, global warming and over-population.

But then there is the question of the response. There are both technological possibilities (the alternate tech fixes) and the social possibililities (energy descent, relocalisation).

We will either be moving from a time of boom to just brutal bust (Easter Island on the global scale). Or we may move from one kind of socioeconomic system to a better adapted one.

A process that will be very uncomfortable just for the fact it must be so different. Yet it could also ultimately be a better one in hindsight.

This is actually what I am looking into - the range of responses now taking place, from the preppers to the transition towns to the guys turning algae into biofuel. And even the local neo-nazi skinheads doing their combat training, getting ready to take over their 'hood.

There are those heading for the hills with guns (even in NZ) and those who are focusing on creating locally resilient communities, planting nut and fruit trees now, learning how to make soap and cheese.

What will the future look like? What more interesting question can there be?

[russ_watters]

We don't live in a world of perfect information. We all need to make our own assessments on this one. Fine, but that's not what you said before: before, you said this was a mainstream view. You seem to now be acknowledging that it really isn't. As for nuclear reactors taking up the slack, there is also peak uranium to think about of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379 No doubt, birds of a feather flock together. Peak uranium is even more crackpotish than peak oil. It was cited earlier in the thread with an utterly absurd claim, but the reality is that we have a relative eternity's worth of nuclear fuel available compared to what's left of our oil. Hundreds of years at the very least. No reputable scientist sees a uranium production problem in the next century. Heck, in the US, we're already storing as "waste" enough perfectly good nuclear fuel to keep our existing plants going for another couple of centuries.
....before the economy collapses. This is the heart of the issue and the heart of my disdain. "Peak Oil" really isn't really about a peak in oil production (which, whenever it happens, is a real phenomena), it is about doomsaying over what happens after we pass peak oil. That's what gets passionate and gullible people to buy books. That's why the title of the thread isn't just "Hubber's Peak" but rather "Hubbert's Peak. The oil crash." [emphasis added]

The beauty of this, as opposed to the 2012 doomsday claim is that peak oil is actually going to happen eventually. When 2012 passes and nothing happens, the books will stop selling. With Peak Oil, when 2006 passes and oil doesn't peak, no problem: just update it with a new date and re-publish the book. The best scenario of course is for the optomists to be right and oil to peak later, which allows for decades of book sales.

But the prediction is no less apocalyptic than the 2012 crackpottery and no less unreasonable. The book who'se title is paraphrased in the title of the thread has the tagline "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon." and talks about a "post-industrial stone age". Presumably, that's what has people buying houses in the country and living off the grid, but it is no less nonsensical than the 2012 crackpot nonsense. No, that was the person I was talking to. I moved from London. Ok, so are you saying you moved from London to NZ because of peak oil?

[apeiron]

Fine, but that's not what you said before: before, you said this was a mainstream view. You seem to now be acknowledging that it really isn't.


No, I think business leaders and chief scientists and international agencies are reasonably in the mainstream.

I'm not looking for an argument on this point as I think it irrelevant. The issue here is not the exact timing but that there will be/was a peak of production in my lifetime. And so I prefer to move on to the next question of the nature of the sensible response - both personal and society-wide.

I've watched the debate develop and I've seen the mainstream position shifting - both what people say in public and what they will confide in private. Personally, I don't need proof of the fact. And I don't even feel a need to prove it to others. I offer some sources and people can make their own calls.

OK, a certain degree of debate over sources is healthy. But not to the point it derails discussion. I do in fact talk to/listen to people on both sides of the divide.


No doubt, birds of a feather flock together. Peak uranium is even more crackpotish than peak oil.


The idea that there will be a peak for uranium too is not crackpot. The estimate of when it will bite is the question.

I agree it seems far off.

For balance, here are some industry views...

http://www.businessinsider.com/uranium-supplies-are-likely-to-be-adequate-until-2020-2009-12

http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/default.aspx?id=294&terms=peak+uranium

(Though amusingly, the World Nuclear Association does believe in peak oil: "There are, however, examples such as oil, where prices and sophisticated projections may now be indicating that proven reserves are indeed beginning to run out.)

Of course, uranium mining and nuclear reactors presume a functioning international economy. So transitioning from oil remains the big if.

A consensus view I would be happy with is that if we have to worry about peak uranium, then things are not going too bad with the world.


That's what gets passionate and gullible people to buy books. That's why the title of the thread isn't just "Hubber's Peak" but rather "Hubbert's Peak. The oil crash." [emphasis added]


Fair enough. Apocalypse sells. Utopia too. We've seen it before. Silent Spring, the ozone layer, the millenium bug.

Luckily these are also some examples where people did wake up and react. Even if the millenium bug was way over-hyped (people getting worried about their toasters), there were things that needed to get fixed.


Ok, so are you saying you moved from London to NZ because of peak oil?

I'm not sure what you are driving at here. But I did move primarily because of climate change/population growth. There were a bunch of other good reasons as well. Like wanting a change.

But I was in a very comfortable position where I was, and there were many interesting countries I could have chosen as a next stop. Yet I made what I felt was an optimal long-term decision on the grounds that a bottleneck would develop (I have kids, and that was the decisive factor really).

[apeiron]

Good news from the other side........

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15661889


Now North America has an unforeseen surfeit of natural gas. The United States’ purchases of LNG have dwindled. It has enough gas under its soil to inspire dreams of self-sufficiency. Other parts of the world may also be sitting on lots of gas. Those in the vanguard of this global gas revolution say it will transform the battle against carbon, threaten coal’s domination of electricity generation and, by dramatically reducing the power of exporters of oil and conventional gas, turn the geopolitics of energy on its head.

Shale is almost ubiquitous, so in theory North America’s success can be repeated elsewhere. How plentiful unconventional resources might be in other regions, however, is far from established. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates the global total to be 921 trillion cubic metres (see chart 2), more than five times proven conventional reserves. Some think there is far more. No one will really know until companies explore and drill.

An age of plenty for gas consumers and of worry for conventional-gas producers thus seems to be dawning. But two factors could reverse the picture again. The first surrounds the uncertainty about how fruitful shale exploration will be outside North America. A clearer understanding of the geology will emerge from pilot wells in the coming months. Second, there are reasons for caution above ground, too. Despite natural gas’s greener credentials than oil’s or coal’s, shale drilling has critics among environmentalists, who worry that water sources will be poisoned and landscapes despoiled.

[Chi Meson]

Presumably, that's what has people buying houses in the country and living off the grid,

In James Howard Kunstler's book he suggests that communities with working farmland (or easily recoverable farmland), and access to railway will survive==>thrive as the economy recovers from the glut of "cheap oil."

So going "off grid" by one's self in the faraway country is not likely to be the best bet. Some people a re still thinking "crash" as in "brick wall." It's much more likely to be a "slow let down," like sitting on a huge air-mattress that has a slow leak.

[Full disclosure: I share Kunstler's opinion on architecture; I believe that he 50--75%-correctly predicted the economic crash of 07-08 (better than pure chance, but not "spot on"--he predicted it to be a year earlier, and a quite a bit worse); I think that his economic prediction for the future is probably also 50--75% correct (and he doesn't predict a "neo stone-age," but rather a "neo agrarian age" in which people will need to relearn how to grow potatoes). His rants start off with reason, but he slips into crackpottery when he's not being careful; you can pick out a lot of "good points" amidst his pejorative frothing, much like many sharply opinionated members here; he's anti-anyparty but dislikes republicans more; I think he probably "punches up" the dire consequences a bit to sell his books, but he fundamentally believes in what he writes. Final assessment: I think I'd have him over for dinner, but he ain't an overnight guest.]

[apeiron]

Swedish report critiquing the official IEA World Energy Outlook....



Using the production parameter, depletion-rate-of-recoverable-resources, we have analyzed the four crude oil fractions and found that the 75 Mb/d of crude oil production forecast for the year 2030 appears significantly overstated, and is more likely to be in the region of 55 Mb/d. Moreover, analysis of the other fractions strongly suggests lower than expected production levels. In total, our analysis points to a world oil supply in 2030 of 75 Mb/d, some 26 Mb/d lower than the IEA predicts.

In all our projections, future oil production by 2030 will have decreased from present levels. The world appears most likely to have passed the peak of global oil production and to have entered the descent phase. If this is the case, then the world has reached the “Peak of the Oil Age”.

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/PeakOilAge.pdf

Another interesting article that highlights another reason why production actually peaks - the impact of conflict as constraints approach.


But that is not accounting for politics and the rise of the "resource nationalism" that has made the multinationals persona non grata in some of the great oil-bearing regions. BP was among the companies that saw its assets seized in a US$30 billion ($42 billion) grab by President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela during 2007, while Exxon resorted to Britain's High Court to try to wrestle back its interests there.

Developing countries such as Venezuela, Nigeria and Russia have increasingly been moving down the road to self-reliance, developing their own state-owned firms at the expense of international players. But this can mean that Western know-how and finance is sacrificed, slowing down the rate of oil development if not losing new reserves completely.

BP, Shell and Exxon have all had tussles with the Kremlin over their oil holdings in Russia, while Shell has found the Government in Nigeria increasingly truculent over attempts to reopen the Niger Delta oil wells shut down because of guerrilla action.

The Western firms see part of their salvation coming from being able to enter markets where they have previously been barred, such as Iraq. Both BP and Exxon have signed recent deals there on terms so tight they would have been inconceivable a few years ago.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10612594&pnum=0

[apeiron]

Peak coal - something else to think about.......

Peak coal production could hit around 2030.

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Coalarticle.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/05/13/2569143.htm

[apeiron]

Peak copper as well....

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6307

Of course modelling for a substitutable and reusable mineral like copper is a little different than for oil or coal, but the exercise is worth it if we want to understand the various constraints to economic growth.

The logistic curve does seem a better fit for the future than unconstrained exponentials, no matter how much technological ingenuity we may credit humans with.

[aquitaine]

No doubt, birds of a feather flock together. Peak uranium is even more crackpotish than peak oil. It was cited earlier in the thread with an utterly absurd claim, but the reality is that we have a relative eternity's worth of nuclear fuel available compared to what's left of our oil. Hundreds of years at the very least. No reputable scientist sees a uranium production problem in the next century. Heck, in the US, we're already storing as "waste" enough perfectly good nuclear fuel to keep our existing plants going for another couple of centuries.

Indeed, as well as create more nuclear fuel through breeder reactors. Uranium is a very common element, a little bit of it is in everything. IIRC, the Japanese even found it on the moon. If that isn't enough we can always switch to Thorium, which is even more bountiful.

and BTW, a further blow to "PO is the end of the world" theory, recently we discovered a way to make plastic without crude oil (http://www.physorg.com/news189187372.html). PO being the end? Sure doesn't look that way to me.

[apeiron]

and BTW, a further blow to "PO is the end of the world" theory, recently we discovered a way to make plastic without crude oil (http://www.physorg.com/news189187372.html). PO being the end? Sure doesn't look that way to me.

But this is plastic from natural gas. So part of the peak oil story still.

Gas buys extra time. But how many years do you think that is?

[aquitaine]

But this is plastic from natural gas. So part of the peak oil story still.

Gas buys extra time. But how many years do you think that is?


They also said it can be modified to use bio fuels. Granted, bio fuels will not replace gasoline or diesel in vehicles, but the amount required to make plastics is significantly less and plastic can be recycled, further cutting the required amount down.

[apeiron]

Peak asphalt!.....where the EROEI hits the road :biggrin:


http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6349

The problem, as usual, is not one of quantity, but one of energy . With minerals, we are not running out of anything except of the energy needed for extraction. It is the principle that I called the universal mining machine. Bitumen doesn't seem to be an exception; we are not running out of bitumen, but we have increasing problems in being able to afford it; just as with a lot of other minerals. For this reason, the proposal of substituting conventional bitumen with products not coming from crude oil doesn't appear to be very practical. There has been talk of "bioasphalt;"

[russ_watters]

Here's a former peak oil catastrophe advocate who now believes the rising price of oil will cause the law supply and demand to take over and limit demand without social upheval. What has changed is his opinion of the price impact and implications for fuel consumption after the spike of July 2008 to nearly $150 a barrel was followed by world economic recession, a deep drop in fuel use and a crash in oil futures to just above $30 in December 2008.

"I have changed my point of view about future prices," said Campbell, who used to think the peak in conventional oil production, which he believes happened in 2005, would lead to a relentless price surge.

Instead, the record rally led to a peak in demand in the developed world.

"Peak oil drives prices up in the first place. It has its own mechanism. We're sort of at peak demand right now," Campbell told Reuters from his home in the village of Ballydehob, West Cork. "I think presently the price limit is about $100."

For those who have painted alarming pictures of civil unrest as the world economy is forced to move away from conventional fuel and pay high prices for it in the interim, an inbuilt price mechanism to limit demand and move the world to other forms of energy should be a good thing.

"We have no alternative but to go green," Campbell said.

But he does not think reduced demand is enough to offset the gravity of peaking supply. He still sees a possibility of social anger as millions are forced to change their lifestyles in a too-sudden structural shift from economic growth driven by cheap conventional fuel.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63539420100406

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

[Office_Shredder]

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

Historically when natural resources are limited supply and demand doesn't regulate the usage economically

[apeiron]

Here's a former peak oil catastrophe advocate who now believes the rising price of oil will cause the law supply and demand to take over and limit demand without social upheval.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63539420100406

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

That is not exactly what the article quotes Campbell as saying. For example...

But he does not think reduced demand is enough to offset the gravity of peaking supply. He still sees a possibility of social anger as millions are forced to change their lifestyles in a too-sudden structural shift from economic growth driven by cheap conventional fuel.

So what is being said here?

1) The era of cheap oil has peaked, or is very close to peaking.

2) The EROEI of known alternatives are not in the same ballpark (though maybe we will crack fusion, do something magical with nanotechnology, etc).

3) This is not a classic Economics 101 supply and demand equilbrium equation as we are talking about a finite resource and a supply inelasticity (with no easy substitutions, see 2).

4) The unknown here - as Campbell is "admitting" - boils down to how people may respond to an inevitable fundamental change.

Will they move smoothly towards a power-down scenario where they kiss goodbye to the old consumerism that never really made them happy in the first place? (And I really hope that is the case, hence my warm feelings for Transition Towns, Oooby, Permaculture and other nascent social responses).

Or will people fight to preserve the growth escalator they have become so used to for the past three generations? (Or in China, India, etc, just getting that first taste for).

Economics 101 does not teach energy descent - how to run an economy smoothly in the reverse de-growth mode. I doubt you even get to study that in 401. :smile:

[russ_watters]

Historically when natural resources are limited supply and demand doesn't regulate the usage economically Um....is that supposed to be facetious or was that just a poor choice of words?

[russ_watters]

That is not exactly what the article quotes Campbell as saying.
It's a paraphrase, not a quote, so I guess...yeah, you're right! But it is exactly what he meant. For example...

1) The era of cheap oil has peaked, or is very close to peaking.
Yes, he says that - he actually believes it was 2005. But even that characterization "the era of cheap oil" is different from the more straightforward supply peak that peak oil used to be about. 2) The EROEI of known alternatives are not in the same ballpark (though maybe we will crack fusion, do something magical with nanotechnology, etc). He doesn't mention that and in any case, I don't agree. Regular nuclear power is cheap precisely because it is high output for the input - and would be even a lot cheaper still if we didn't have fake political barriers. Regular nuclear power could provide for the vast majority of our energy needs, assuming a phase-in conversion of a large fraction of our cars to electric. The fusion and nanotechnology quip - that's just technobabble/non sequitur. 3) This is not a classic Economics 101 supply and demand equilbrium equation as we are talking about a finite resource and a supply inelasticity (with no easy substitutions, see 2). What it means is that the doom and gloom scenario assumes/requires an extremely low price elasticity of supply and the evidence from the recent recession implies a more reasonable level of elasticity.
Will they move smoothly towards a power-down scenario where they kiss goodbye to the old consumerism that never really made them happy in the first place? (And I really hope that is the case, hence my warm feelings for Transition Towns, Oooby, Permaculture and other nascent social responses). That's all non sequitur. It has nothing to do with energy. I have a nuclear power plant 5 miles from my house and am confident I'll always have the power I need to run my computer and big-screen home theater system. If a lack of oil means I have to buy an electric car in a few years, so be it. I'll be fine. You think that's "consumerism" and a bad thing? Fine, but it doesn't have any bearing here.
Economics 101 does not teach energy descent - how to run an economy smoothly in the reverse de-growth mode. I doubt you even get to study that in 401. :smile: This "reverse de-growth mode" is the doom-and-gloom, collapse of civilization type scenario that is the essence of "Peak Oil" and is now what he is saying he doesn't believe will happen! You can't learn it in an economics class because it isn't economics, it's just fearmongering. But you can learn why it is just fearmongering by understanding elasticity in your econ 101 class.

I don't see this change of position to be a very good marketing strategy. The decrease in fearmongering will result in a decrease in demand for books on peak oil! Though perhaps the strategy works as a hedge against having to keep pushing back the date of peak oil.

[Office_Shredder]

Um....is that supposed to be facetious or was that just a poor choice of words?

I'm referring to beyond economic activity... you know, war.

[apeiron]

It's a paraphrase, not a quote, so I guess...yeah, you're right! But it is exactly what he meant.

I don't think you are accurately paraphrasing what is being said (but then the article is badly written and we could analyse its true meaning endlessly).

But it seems clear enough that Campbell is just saying that the run-up in oil prices by speculators was so sharp that it punctured the economy and led to the credit crunch - all the wild derivative bets unravelling. So this knocked consumption, and thus prices, on its heels again.

De-growth in other words. Every peak oiler indeed says this. And they say as economic activity takes off again, we will again be banging our heads on the ceiling.

At that point, we either need permanent degrowth or energy substitution. Coal and nuclear maybe some people's choice for "alternatives".

I happen to live around 5000 miles from the nearest nuclear power plant. That may colour my views too. :wink:

[apeiron]

What the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2010 thinks about peak oil.....

Summary - The immediate issue is a lack of investment in production that will create oil shortage and price spikes (thus economic problems and international tensions) within a few years.

Longer term (next decade), not much prospect of the large new fields that will be needed to meet current growth in demand. Any production increases will have to be environmentally "dirty".

The big question is why aren't oil companies investing in more production? Is it just that they were so sensitive to the credit crunch that they were forced to shelve investment?

Or is it that they can see down the road and are asking why bother in pumping out what's left even faster when a more intelligent business strategy is to stick with current number of oil rigs and make more profit as prices rise?


Energy Summary

To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then.

During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

http://www.peakoil.net/files/JOE2010.pdf