Peak Oil.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » April 30, 2004, 2:37 pm

Interesting stuff, if not outlandish. It is certain though that Oil production WILL peak, just when is the question. If we dont prepare for it, we be fucked with a capitol F.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » April 30, 2004, 4:48 pm

damnit all, and here I was hoping for this thread to turn into a flamewar about the USA & all of its pompous citizens not caring about the future energy needs, and how we are going to sink the global ecomony because of our flagrant misuse of thr worlds energy resources....and no one replies.
How depressing.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » May 1, 2004, 3:02 am

its a good read, but its hard to take anything seriously with black squares with red text every few paragraphs with catch phrases

it made sense when i got to the bottom and the guy was selling something though

if we could only harness peoples desire to become rich as a source of energy, hell maybe we could get some people worked up about getting rich, then throw em in a fire, see if they produce as much energy as oil

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 1, 2004, 9:03 am

You should take it somewhat seriously. That page has some exagerations and distortions, but the basic concept is real enough- Oil is a finite resource, and will run out eventually, and as it does the potential for severe economic rudeness is huge. Just a thought.

*Hugs*
Varia

Estrosiath · Post by **Estrosiath** » May 1, 2004, 2:04 pm

Aye, the point is valid. What you do have to keep in mind is that, even now, we are not totally aware of the 100% of oil resources present in the world. Especially within the confines of Russia, or the Central Asian countries.
But yet, oil production will peak... And then it will start behaving just like any other good with a finite amount. We can just hope the oil lobbys by then have not killed any and all research on possible alternative means of producing energy. Or else we can all go back to horseback riding

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 1, 2004, 2:23 pm

Estrosiath wrote:Aye, the point is valid. What you do have to keep in mind is that, even now, we are not totally aware of the 100% of oil resources present in the world. Especially within the confines of Russia, or the Central Asian countries.
But yet, oil production will peak... And then it will start behaving just like any other good with a finite amount. We can just hope the oil lobbys by then have not killed any and all research on possible alternative means of producing energy. Or else we can all go back to horseback riding

Energy is easy and not really the problem in the post oil paradigm...Its all the materials for which oil is the base...Here is a fairly notable petrologist's take...He's not selling anything in this article...

http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

Article Summary:

The use of oil has changed world economies, social and political structures, and lifestyles beyond the effect of any other substance in such a short time. But oil supplies are limited. The peak of world oil production and the beginning of the irreversible decline of oil availability is clearly in sight. This paper examines the role of oil in two contexts: Its importance in countries almost entirely dependent on oil income, and the role of oil in world agricultural productivity. Possible alternatives to oil and its close associate, natural gas, are also examined. Countries almost solely dependent on oil income are chiefly those of the Persian Gulf region. The prosperity which oil has brought to these nations has resulted in a rapidly growing population which is not sustainable without oil revenues. World agriculture is now highly dependent on oil and natural gas for fertilizers and pesticides. Without these, agricultural productivity would markedly decline. As a base for the production of these materials, oil and natural gas are irreplaceable. Lifestyles and affluence in the post-petroleum paradigm will be quite different from today. World population will have to be reduced if it is to exist at any reasonable standard of living. At that time concern will be much more centered on obtaining basic resources, especially agricultural, by which to survive.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » May 1, 2004, 6:58 pm

I think the idea that the world is going to end when oil runs out is pretty silly. I also think the author severely underestimates the power of human ingenuity.

We don't have viable alternatives, because oil is cheap and noone is bothering much with them. Oil isn't going to just run out one day, causing a global panic. It will become increasingly expensive over time, and force the issue of alternatives as they become more cost effective (as compared to the increased oil price).

I think middle eastern countries with no other source of revenue should be very worried, but it will be more a driving force toward alternatives for us than anything.

Kriista · Post by **Kriista** » May 2, 2004, 3:53 am

oh i dont doubt that its a serious issue and concern, i just dont believe it to be as apocaliptic(sp) as he paints it out to be

in a way im looking forward to peak oil, so major corps finally get off their asses and work towards renewable/alternative energy sources, since obviously thats where the moneys going to be

its going to be interesting to see the effect of obsolete cars will have on the economy tho, if gas prices get too high to be viable for 'normal folk', so having a car you cant drive, and no one that wonts to buy it is going to put people in a position
which would eventually go back to normal when demand of gas would head back down

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 3, 2004, 12:18 am

Where's Chmee to tell us that economies grow without end, oil is inexhaustible and only the lazy and stupid are poor?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » May 3, 2004, 1:07 am

Pfttt...just have to wait another few million years for more wells to form!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 3, 2004, 11:46 am

Kriista wrote:its a good read, but its hard to take anything seriously with black squares with red text every few paragraphs with catch phrases

it made sense when i got to the bottom and the guy was selling something though

if we could only harness peoples desire to become rich as a source of energy, hell maybe we could get some people worked up about getting rich, then throw em in a fire, see if they produce as much energy as oil

Actually, your are right...that site is sensationalizing doomsday scenarios, and tries to sell a book about it. Credibility is kinda lost at this point. The I started digging around about "peak oil"...

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 3, 2004, 1:01 pm

/snore

Seriously there are massive oil sand deposits in Northern Canada and South America that dwarf the conventional oil reserves. The technology to harvest this oil is already developed and being streamlined. They are not as cheap to produce but their "break even point" is around $10-12 /bbl so although its not the $4/bbl of conventional supplies... and at $30+/bbl is becoming increasingly viable.

There are also huge oil shale deposits in the northcentral US (as well as some in South America) that hold even more oil. These have not been tapped as early experiments in recovery were vastly expensive but if the scenario that scaremonger is predicting even starts to come to pass, without an alternative energy source in place, you can bet that resources will be invested to find the way to harvest that supply.

This also totally avoids some experiments that have been done with pig dung to produce methane. For those who don't know natural gas is primarily methane (CH4) with small perecentages of ethane (C2H6) and some scenting agents (mercaptan). They are are in reality short chain organic compounds. Again, not impossible to recreate, but not cost effective at the present time.

As mentioned, we haven't discovered all the oil there is to find. Hell look at the off shore discoveries they have made of the coast of Eastern Canada/New England in the past decade (as well as what was mentioned about possibilities in Russia, etc). It all buys us time. Fossil fuels are a finite supply but they are not going to run out as soon as this guy needs to make himself credible.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 3, 2004, 1:38 pm

Wulfran wrote:/snore

Seriously there are massive oil sand deposits in Northern Canada and South America that dwarf the conventional oil reserves. The technology to harvest this oil is already developed and being streamlined. They are not as cheap to produce but their "break even point" is around $10-12 /bbl so although its not the $4/bbl of conventional supplies... and at $30+/bbl is becoming increasingly viable.

There are also huge oil shale deposits in the northcentral US (as well as some in South America) that hold even more oil. These have not been tapped as early experiments in recovery were vastly expensive but if the scenario that scaremonger is predicting even starts to come to pass, without an alternative energy source in place, you can bet that resources will be invested to find the way to harvest that supply.

This also totally avoids some experiments that have been done with pig dung to produce methane. For those who don't know natural gas is primarily methane (CH4) with small perecentages of ethane (C2H6) and some scenting agents (mercaptan). They are are in reality short chain organic compounds. Again, not impossible to recreate, but not cost effective at the present time.

As mentioned, we haven't discovered all the oil there is to find. Hell look at the off shore discoveries they have made of the coast of Eastern Canada/New England in the past decade (as well as what was mentioned about possibilities in Russia, etc). It all buys us time. Fossil fuels are a finite supply but they are not going to run out as soon as this guy needs to make himself credible.

The guy who made this site is trying to drum up sales of his book through sensationalizing doomsday, but there are some interesting thigs going on in terms of oils reserves lately. Not like we are going to suddenly run dry, but prices may never come down again, but continue to rise. I heard a couple of sources say the price of gas will hit the $3.00 gal mark by labor day...which is kind lame, because that's VERY close to election time!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 3, 2004, 1:50 pm

Wulfran wrote:This also totally avoids some experiments that have been done with pig dung to produce methane. For those who don't know natural gas is primarily methane (CH4) with small perecentages of ethane (C2H6) and some scenting agents (mercaptan). They are are in reality short chain organic compounds. Again, not impossible to recreate, but not cost effective at the present time.

Who run Bartertown?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 3, 2004, 2:03 pm

Wulfran wrote:
This also totally avoids some experiments that have been done with pig dung to produce methane. For those who don't know natural gas is primarily methane (CH4) with small perecentages of ethane (C2H6) and some scenting agents (mercaptan). They are are in reality short chain organic compounds. Again, not impossible to recreate, but not cost effective at the present time.

And how the hell does one do this on a truely gigantic scale that would be needed to even come close to filling only a portion of the void that a lack of oil would create?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 3, 2004, 2:28 pm

Here is a more realistic site on the subject.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/magoon/

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 4, 2004, 6:31 am

One of the largest North Sea oil companies (Shell- UK/Norwegian I believe) has been in the shit lately after admitting it inflated its estimated reserves by something like 40%. If many more oil companies have done the same I'd consider that something worth thinking about when trumpetting the "oil will last forevar!" line.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 4, 2004, 10:50 am

When exactly we will hit peak oil production is a complicated question. It depends on geological, economic, political and technical forces. I am skeptical that it is as possible to determine when it will occur, even within a range, as some of the peak oil people seem to indicate it is.

At some point though we will hit the peak production. If demand is still high then oil prices will rise which will drive conservation and will push toward substitutions for the various things it is used for. It is more likely to be a gradual smooth transition than a sudden change. If the alternatives haven't developed to be cheaper in price comparitively then it will be a drag on the economy since we will be paying more than what we had been for oil. But again, I don't think it will be the catastrophe they are making it out to be.

Ron Bailey had an article in Reason about this a couple months ago.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021804.shtml

This article he links too has a lot of interesting information in it (warning, it is a pdf file).

http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 5, 2004, 10:00 am

Peak Oil is an economic fact. Oil Sands, Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Nuclear etc are all just a drop in the bucket next to energy produced via oil. Oil is the basis of most of the North American society (that includes you canadians) and it is the strength of Europe, the Middle East and it is rapidly growing in demand in Asia.

If you do not think that the price of a barrel of oil hitting $100 from the current $30-40 range will cause a societal breakdown then you are severly in denial. Food must be transported, fertilizer must be produced to maintain food output, most rubber is petrochemical not from a rubber tree and as such seals, gaskets etc will increase in cost. Basically without oil we do not have a backup to produce the items need to gain or utilize other technologies. Making the world work when a gallon of gasoline or diesel exceeds 10 bucks in price will not happen.

You really have to consider all the points, and read more than one source of information before making a judgement on this issue. Simple fact is that we are dependant not just on the gasoline from a barrel of oil, but for most of what our society uses. If we went back to farming every square inch available in the US without fertilizer, fuel for tractors, airborne spraying, plants to process food, transport to market etc, we could not feed the current population.

The shit is going to hit the fan and the least affected people will be the poorest in the most backward nations, but the US will ride a little longer than the rest of the first world because when it all comes down to it, liberals stop being liberal when they get hungry, antiwar protestors stay home when their calorie intake drops under 1500 a day, and it does not seem so bad to take over food/fuel/basic need producing areas in other countries when your children are starving. I do not predict us losing our edge militarily on the rest of the world anytime in the near future. But it will not correct the problem, merely drag it out.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 5, 2004, 11:38 am

i think we pretty much invade the whole Middle East if it hits $75 a barrel.

regardless of how buddy-buddy the House of Saud is with the Bush family.

Post by **Sylvus** » May 5, 2004, 11:57 am

Kylere wrote:Peak Oil is an economic fact. Oil Sands, Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Nuclear etc are all just a drop in the bucket next to energy produced via oil. Oil is the basis of most of the North American society (that includes you canadians) and it is the strength of Europe, the Middle East and it is rapidly growing in demand in Asia.

All those others are a drop in the bucket because of the low cost and high availability of oil. If that goes away, we'll switch to other sources of power and materials for the production of the afforementioned products. As it stands, businesses will do whatever keeps the bottom line as big as possible, and at the current time that's Oil. Once it is no longer economically viable to use oil, or that time is on the horizon (now?), big money will be pumped into finding alternative methods/materials, and innovation will be bolstered.

We're not just going to wake up one Thursday morning in a Mad Max movie. If we're forced to make changes, we will; man is pretty good at adapting. It may not be the most comfortable transition period due to increased costs or having less fuel for a time or whatnot, but it's not going to be some catastrophic end of the world.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 5, 2004, 1:08 pm

Voronwë wrote:i think we pretty much invade the whole Middle East if it hits $75 a barrel.

regardless of how buddy-buddy the House of Saud is with the Bush family.

I agree entirely, and said as much.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 5, 2004, 1:13 pm

Sylvus,

Yes it will not happen with a bang, but with a whimper. It is going to get harder to feed people, medicate people, transport people and it will grow worse and worse over time. New inventions will help somewhat, some shifts towards other energy production will help, but in the end the odds of supply equalling demand without a major technological advance on par with the invention of the wheel is next to nothing.

Soylent Green Man, soylent green, wake up! It is not happening yet, but it is the most feasible outlook for the next 50 years ( to the dumbasses who cannot get a clue, I do not think we will be processing people anytime soon, but power only being on for certain hours, food distribution points, shared job hours, pay as you go police/fire protection is all going to happen within the next 50)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 5, 2004, 1:19 pm

If I have to pay as much for gas as Euros do I'm going to be pissed!

We need many many many more nuclear power plants.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 5, 2004, 2:05 pm

Winnow,

Nuclear Power suffers from multiple issues, not least of which is the NIMBY attitude, but when it comes down to it, you need a reliable cheaper energy supply to MAKE a nuclear power plant. With the current costs from manufacturing one, and meeting safety/political issues power companies just are not doing it. The people making the decisions are independently weathy at this point, and will have the cash to ensure they live comfortably regardless of what happens to the population at large, and as such they have no reason to suffer now to make things better in the future.

John Donne may have had it right, but most people never listen.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 5, 2004, 2:23 pm

I say we build a plethora of nuclear power plants stick them all in Flint,Michigan and if one goeas super nova on us will that a bonus.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 5, 2004, 2:29 pm

Voronwë wrote:i think we pretty much invade the whole Middle East if it hits $75 a barrel.

regardless of how buddy-buddy the House of Saud is with the Bush family.

I think this is unlikely. The cost of occupation would far outweigh the cost of just buying the oil. For the same reason I always thought the train of thought that iraq was all about the oil was silly. Even if we took all of the oil produced while we were over there it wouldn't cover the cost of the war.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 5, 2004, 2:37 pm

Kylere wrote:Sylvus,

Yes it will not happen with a bang, but with a whimper. It is going to get harder to feed people, medicate people, transport people and it will grow worse and worse over time. New inventions will help somewhat, some shifts towards other energy production will help, but in the end the odds of supply equalling demand without a major technological advance on par with the invention of the wheel is next to nothing.

Soylent Green Man, soylent green, wake up! It is not happening yet, but it is the most feasible outlook for the next 50 years ( to the dumbasses who cannot get a clue, I do not think we will be processing people anytime soon, but power only being on for certain hours, food distribution points, shared job hours, pay as you go police/fire protection is all going to happen within the next 50)

Its impossible to know for certain what will happen. There are certainly events that could occur that would cause a substantial worsening of the human condition (say a significant nuclear exchange).

That being said, I think by far the most likely outcome will be that we will all be better off in 50 years. Most likely, far better off.

Who knows, maybe one day the Malthusians will get it right. So far however, their record at prediction has been extremely poor.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » May 5, 2004, 2:39 pm

Kylere wrote:Winnow,

Nuclear Power suffers from multiple issues, not least of which is the NIMBY attitude, but when it comes down to it, you need a reliable cheaper energy supply to MAKE a nuclear power plant. With the current costs from manufacturing one, and meeting safety/political issues power companies just are not doing it. The people making the decisions are independently weathy at this point, and will have the cash to ensure they live comfortably regardless of what happens to the population at large, and as such they have no reason to suffer now to make things better in the future.

As you point out, a fair amount of the cost of Nuclear power comes from NIMBYism and from the current state of regulations. In other words, from politcal concerns. Absent cheap oil (or some other alternative), those concerns could very well change.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 5, 2004, 2:40 pm

it would cost about $1 trillion to occupy the place for 3-5 years...

the US imports about 1.5 million barrels of oil a day so lets say that if we could drop the price by $20 a barrel, that would only net us $11 billion a year.

so i guess you are right =)

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » May 7, 2004, 5:42 pm

[quote="Sylvus]
We're not just going to wake up one Thursday morning in a Mad Max movie. If we're forced to make changes, we will; man is pretty good at adapting. It may not be the most comfortable transition period due to increased costs or having less fuel for a time or whatnot, but it's not going to be some catastrophic end of the world.[/quote]

You are right there, its not going to be a Road Warrior scenario, but at worst case, we just might be faced with the fact that our reserves are not nearly what they thought they were. We might be faced with "ok, we dont have 50 more years of cheap, availible oil....we have 10." That would be a pretty good economic disaster