Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

I think it was may 2005. Although total liquids has risen since, that has been from non-conventional oil - cheifly tar sands and biofuels, which I don't see as a viable long-term replacement for oil.

As for the next few years? The impending recession might cool demand down somewhat, so the price will come down. But supply will not rise. Growth out of this recession will find itself running into the same supply problems we have now.

Substantial decline won't happen for a little while longer, and beyond that I just don't know what the global response will be. Could be nasty. Could be inspiring. America doesn't do long-term planning very well, but I suspect rapidly increasing energy prices will lead to a boom in renewables and nuclear. It won't plug the gap, but it'll be a start.

tbh, it's all idle speculation. but I strongly doubt there will be any more substantial rise in crude oil production. 100mbpd will never happen and I'm willing to make a monetary bet on that.
 
I think it was may 2005. Although total liquids has risen since, that has been from non-conventional oil - cheifly tar sands and biofuels, which I don't see as a viable long-term replacement for oil.

As for the next few years? The impending recession might cool demand down somewhat, so the price will come down. But supply will not rise. Growth out of this recession will find itself running into the same supply problems we have now.

Substantial decline won't happen for a little while longer, and beyond that I just don't know what the global response will be. Could be nasty. Could be inspiring. America doesn't do long-term planning very well, but I suspect rapidly increasing energy prices will lead to a boom in renewables and nuclear. It won't plug the gap, but it'll be a start.

tbh, it's all idle speculation. but I strongly doubt there will be any more substantial rise in crude oil production. 100mbpd will never happen and I'm willing to make a monetary bet on that.

What will happen...? As oil gets more and more expensive the alternatives become more attractive, leading to lower prices (due to economies of scale) for alternately fueled engines. Other oil based derivatives are replaced by their lower-priced equivalents. You won't have any more free plastic carrier bags, but you will still be able to take your shopping home. (If online shopping hasn't taken over since it becomes cheaper)

Global recession and economic collapse is avoided and David Dissadent has to find a new set of Doomsday scenarios to peddle, etc... :D

Disclaimer : This is purely speculative, and the future may be indeed be a Mad-Max nightmare...
 
What will happen...? As oil gets more and more expensive the alternatives become more attractive, leading to lower prices (due to economies of scale) for alternately fueled engines. Other oil based derivatives are replaced by their lower-priced equivalents. You won't have any more free plastic carrier bags, but you will still be able to take your shopping home. (If online shopping hasn't taken over since it becomes cheaper
It's not the engines that are the problem, but the fuel. Trouble is that the alternatives are nowhere near ready to take over, or ever able to replace oil. Biofuels are a dead end - we'd run out of land for growing food on. Tar sands are a joke - they require so much energy to produce and cause so much damage. Coal to Liquids is also equally comical in terms of energy efficiency. The basic fact is that there is no technology in the wings that can replace oil like-for-like.

Plastic bags are the least of our worries.
 
It's not the engines that are the problem, but the fuel. Trouble is that the alternatives are nowhere near ready to take over, or ever able to replace oil.

I'm fairly sure that as oil gets more expensive that alternatives will be developed that will be able to replace it. And no, I don't know what these alternatives may be. As I said, I was providing pure speculation... One thing I am sure of is that people tend to go for the easy way out. Once it becomes hard to use oil, people are going to be switching to something else... And yep, it will be expensive to research these alternatives, but compared to the cost of using oil, or the opportunity cost of not doing anything, it will become the cheaper alternative.
 
Alternatives : state dictatorship only in case of oil. Laws that say where the oil will be used, railroads built, and free bicycles to everybody.And laws to force people to over insulate their homes , which will lead to very little need for heating in winter or cooling in summer
Local organic agriculture as a main purpose, laws to help it.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YsicRHvYgl4 - what Cuba did when they lost 80% of their oil imports

Problems : some countries have no oil to preserve trough such laws, they must import. So it does not matters if they put themselves trough all these tough measures while other countries just keep consuming as much as they can

Soon we will see an era of oil induced communism, where everyone wants the oil to be shared. But the powerful ones like USA will get their share like they did in Iraq. The price of oil does not matter, as long as Iraq sells to USA and not others
 
Soon we will see an era of oil induced communism, where everyone wants the oil to be shared. But the powerful ones like USA will get their share like they did in Iraq. The price of oil does not matter, as long as Iraq sells to USA and not others

So... Instead of developing alternative energy sources, countries are going to completely change their democratic, parliamentary systems to communism. Sorry. can't see that one working much...
 
I wanted to say "a global communist view" of the oil. Countries will say that it belongs to everybody, like the air :) and everybody has a right to it, even if it's in another country
 
I wanted to say "a global communist view" of the oil. Countries will say that it belongs to everybody, like the air :) and everybody has a right to it, even if it's in another country

And when this happens, will people be chauffeured around by pigs in helicopters...? :confused:
 
I'm fairly sure that as oil gets more expensive that alternatives will be developed that will be able to replace it. And no, I don't know what these alternatives may be..


That reminds me of Brass Eyes 'there's no evidence to support this - but is a scientific fact'

Thing is the last 250 have seen an explosion of population, production and consumption only made possible by access to cheap and readily available hydro carbons - coal, oil, gas. There is no viable alternative to these anywhere on the horizon. And arguing 'oh Im sure the boffins will come up with something' is not a much of an argument.
The result will be an energy crisies - which wil hit food produciton particularly hard (already happenening to an extent with the switch from food to bio-fuel production).
We can either allow the rich and powerful to monopolise the planets energy for themselves whilst the rest of us get fucked - or we work towards a more sustainable equitable and democratic utilisaiton of the earths resources.
The model of ever greater economic growth and consumption is utterly depenadant on cheap energy. Take that away and the only viable way forward that doesn;t involve mass starvation and destitution is to change the economic model to one based on human needs.
 
That reminds me of Brass Eyes 'there's no evidence to support this - but is a scientific fact'

Thing is the last 250 have seen an explosion of population, production and consumption only made possible by access to cheap and readily available hydro carbons - coal, oil, gas. There is no viable alternative to these anywhere on the horizon. And arguing 'oh Im sure the boffins will come up with something' is not a much of an argument.
The result will be an energy crisies - which wil hit food produciton particularly hard (already happenening to an extent with the switch from food to bio-fuel production).
We can either allow the rich and powerful to monopolise the planets energy for themselves whilst the rest of us get fucked - or we work towards a more sustainable equitable and democratic utilisaiton of the earths resources.
The model of ever greater economic growth and consumption is utterly depenadant on cheap energy. Take that away and the only viable way forward that doesn;t involve mass starvation and destitution is to change the economic model to one based on human needs.

Um... You missed the bit where I said I said I was speculating widly... Why have there been no alternatives in 250 years...? Because we've never needed one yet. Bit like saying that up until the Wright Bros, flying is impossible because we've never done it... :D

We're a clever little species, and since this group pf plains monkeys has managed to learn how to survive under water, fly and go into space. I'm fairly we'll be able to come up with a way to keep our tea warm without an oil stove... Its called optimism... :D

Its very easy to think we're doomed, doomed I tell ye, because that doesn't involve thinking...
 
Indeed, "let's leave pessimism for better times..." It's a self-fuelling spiral downwards!

Very convenient, just lie back...:rolleyes: and do fuck all...:hmm: as it were...:oops:

"Me not responsible!" is the only requirement. Hence very infatuating...

However, involve the state and watch it happen in amazement!!!

Everything about "globalization" says it all! All state funded!!!!!

Fundamental research is the clue - private firms are clueless!

Independent minds needed! Academia and gov necessary!

But corps... Ugghh...:rolleyes:
 
Um... You missed the bit where I said I said I was speculating widly... Why have there been no alternatives in 250 years...? Because we've never needed one yet. Bit like saying that up until the Wright Bros, flying is impossible because we've never done it... :D

We're a clever little species, and since this group pf plains monkeys has managed to learn how to survive under water, fly and go into space. I'm fairly we'll be able to come up with a way to keep our tea warm without an oil stove... Its called optimism... :D

Its very easy to think we're doomed, doomed I tell ye, because that doesn't involve thinking...

Great stuff!

A letter to Benny Peiser's CCNet scholarly network helps explain just how clever humans are and how the idea that we are "running" out of hydrocarbons resources and other resources is complete nonsense:

PEAK OIL THEORY: ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF ENERGY?

Wendell Krossa [wkrossa@shaw.ca]

Benny,

in response to Richard Wakefield's comments on the soon to arrive end-of-hydrocarbon-energy (Peak oil hysteria), let me offer some thoughts from Julian Simon on the notion of limits to resources more generally, including energy resources.

Simon says in his autobiography that underlying all his work was the idea of progress - that people gradually and erratically, but surely, move towards greater efficiency, a higher standard of living, and a better living environment. He then makes the following linkage between other related ideas that shaped his research. He begins with Einstein's insight that science is not just about discovering what exists but more about the interaction of human imagination with natural and social reality. The regularities and generalizations that we discover follow from our interests and perceptions as well as from what actually exists. We invent and develop the relationships we find, rather than just merely discovering them. Hence, there are many and varied views of reality- of what actually exists. Every scientist slices reality in the way that best suits his own objective (I am quoting and paraphrasing Simon as well as others that he quotes from pages 325 to 330 of his autobiography A Life Against the Grain and Ultimate Resource).

One view that some scientists have invented is that of closed systems. Closed for our convenience, not because they are naturally so, says Simon. Related to the closed-system way of thinking is the notion that available resources are finite and countable. "This is simply a prejudice, and a prejudice which leads to unsound long-term forecasts. In Einstein's words, 'Even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices...Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as conceptual necessities ... the road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors'" (p.330).

Simon then offers the results of his own research that natural resources are not finite. Central to his response to the concept of limited resources is the reality of the human mind or human intelligence with its creativity, inventiveness, ingenuity, curiosity, impulse to explore and so much more that enables this ultimate resource to find solutions to all energy and other resource problems that arise. History confirms Simon's insights on resources.

The long term historical pattern has been that with ongoing economic development and growth, resources have become more plentiful and also have become less costly (and this with increased population, another important ingredient in the mix). When any resource has neared depletion, people have then found alternative resources or have discovered further reserves of the depleting resource.

As Simon says, "Mother Earth's storehouse is far more richly stocked with goods than is ordinarily inferred" (Ultimate Resource, p.49). He continues that contrary to environmental mythology and conventional wisdom "natural resources are not finite" (p.54). He admits that "on the face of it, even to inquire whether natural resources are finite seems like nonsense. Everyone 'knows' that resources are finite. And this belief has led many persons to draw unfounded, far-reaching conclusions about the future of our world economy and civilization (54)...for many writers the inevitable depletion of natural resources is simply not open to question...The idea that resources are finite in supply is so pervasive and influential that the President's 1972 Commission on Population Growth and the American Future based its policy recommendations squarely upon this assumption...The assumption of finiteness indubitably misleads many scientific forecasters because their conclusions follow inexorably from that assumption" (55). The philosophical prejudice.
Simon further notes that this assumption of limits to natural resources is central to much contemporary doomsday thinking. And he admits that his arguments to the contrary are initially counter-intuitive.
 
But he urges us to not cling to a simple-minded, fixed-resources theory and assert that resources will become exhausted because they are limited.
He then states his own theory to counter the limited resource theory: "More people and increased income expand the demand for raw materials as well as finished products. The resulting actual and expected shortages force up prices of the natural resources. This causes resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions (increased prices trigger the search by business and scientists for new ways to satisfy the demand and sooner or later new sources and innovative substitutes are found)...solutions are eventually found...and in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred (new discoveries lead to cheaper natural resources than existed before this process began, leaving humanity better off than if the shortages had not appeared. Increased productivity of land and the development of new sources of energy moving from wood to coal to oil to nuclear power exemplify this process)" (Ultimate Resource, p.59, mixed with interspersed quotes from Life Against the Grain, p.251). The term 'finite', says Simon, is not only inappropriate but is downright misleading when applied to natural resources (p.62). Besides, we can now create entirely new materials to replace older resources. Ceramics is one example of new knowledge putting an end to past generations worries about running out of metals (p.63).

So Simon is right to counter this limited resource fallacy and the related depreciation of humanity (greedy, selfish people are consuming too much and exhausting resources and destroying the planet in the process) with the fact that the ultimate resource is the human mind with its unlimited creative potential. The unlimited nature of the human mind (and the basic goodness of humanity) makes the issue of resource limitations a falsely posed problem. The human mind will find solutions to any resource problems that arise because human ingenuity and creativity are unlimited and, as history has proven over past millennia, people have always found ways to continue to improve life and to raise living standards. Human minds created pounds of sand (fibre optics) to replace tons of copper. Human minds created high-yield strains of cereals that made nonsense of Paul Erhlich's prophecies of famine (Peter Huber in Hard Green). And human minds will continue to develop new resources to replace old ones (nuclear and solar to replace hydrocarbons or as Arthur Clarke predicted, unlimited supplies of dark energy). Simon calls this the principle of 'infinite substitutability' (Ultimate Resource, p.49).

The undergirding force behind the progress here is that people are in net terms more creators than destroyers.

Wilfred Beckerman similarly argues that there are no limits to natural resources. He says, "In short, the main reason why we will never run out of any resource or even suffer seriously from any sudden reduction in its supply is that whenever demand for any particular material begins to run up against supply limitations, a wide variety of economic forces are set in motion to remedy the situation. These forces start with a rise in price, which, in turn leads to all sorts of secondary favorable feedbacks- notably a shift to substitutes, an increase in exploration, and technical progress that brings down the costs of exploration and refining and processing as well as the costs of substitutes" (p.13, A Poverty of Reason).

Beckerman, as does Simon, also provides lists of natural resource reserves which show how these supposedly limited resources have expanded, often massively, over history.

Too often we can find ourselves caught up in the fallacy of what James Payne calls "presentism"- the tendency to assume that the events of the present are larger, more important, or more shocking than the past (History of Force, p.8). Humanity has been through all this resource alarmism before, but with less wealth people in the past were not as prepared to resolve such problems. They did anyway. We are better equipped to find solutions now, and with ongoing economic development future generations will be even more capable of resolving such issues. So human progress will continue. The longest of long term trends (the entirety of human history) affirms this trajectory of progress. We will not run out of energy but will discover ever larger supplies of energy to fuel our ongoing creation of more order in the world and wherever else we choose to live.

"As I have gotten older ... I believe that progress is not only possible but inevitable and probably irreversible by now" (Simon, A Life Against The Grain, p.342).

Wendell Krossa

 
We're a clever little species, and since this group pf plains monkeys has managed to learn how to survive under water, fly and go into space. I'm fairly we'll be able to come up with a way to keep our tea warm without an oil stove... Its called optimism... :D

I agree with you. It's a hackneyed phrase but Necessity is the Mother of Invention. People will get organised when they realise their standard of living is on the line. :)

One view that some scientists have invented is that of closed systems. Closed for our convenience, not because they are naturally so, says Simon. Related to the closed-system way of thinking is the notion that available resources are finite and countable. "This is simply a prejudice, and a prejudice which leads to unsound long-term forecasts.

Did asteroid mining start and no-one tell me? :hmm:

Bit daft to say that the World is infinite because I believe it is.
 
Energy investment banker Matt Simmons recently addressed OTC, Houston with respect to above ground issues: OTC: $100 trillion needed to rebuild energy infrastructure. Simmons referred to the energy industry needing to invest between $50 and $100 trillion in the next 7 years to replace ageing / corroding infrastructure.

In the oil industry we are used to big numbers but these are on a different scale entirely and, using the upper estimate, here are 2 other ways of looking at it:

1) At current production rate of 85m bbls/day total production during the next 7 years will be (85m x 365 x 7) bbls = 2.17 x 10^11 bbls. Investment required = $1 x 10^14 which represents $461 for every barrel likely to be produced during that 7 year period (and that's not even taking into account operating costs, taxes, refining costs etc).

2) Assuming average UK wage of £25k pa and exchange rate of £1 = $1.95 the investment required represents 7 years' gross earnings for 293 million adults.

Either way, even the lower estimate of investment required ($50 trillion) would appear to be totally impossible i.e. it's not going to happen, and I'd assume that Simmons (with his extensive knowledge of the industry) knows it. On this basis the industry will doubtless have to live with infrastucture in an increasingly fragile condition.

It's well known in the industry that virtually no new refineries have been built for decades in US. A few years ago when I was headed for a drilling rig at Sabine Pass I passed the nearby Port Arthur refinery and noted that it was extremely rusty - I doubt much has changed except the facilities have aged by a few more years. Simmons undoubtedly has very valid concerns about the viability of infrastructure which, in many cases, current flowrates are requiring it to be worked 'flat out'.

On this basis we must expect to see increasing plant downtime over the next few years which must add to concerns about the industry's ability to meet increasing (or even current) demand rates. Note that this issue is related to our ability to process and transport oil once it has been produced i.e. there is a big problem here irrespective of geological factors or geopolitics.
 
Oil hits record above $132 on weak supply
http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/21/markets/oil_eia/index.htm

U.S. light crude for July delivery reached as high as $132.08 a barrel, and was up $2.75 to $131.73 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange at 11:04 a.m. ET. Prior to the 10:30 a.m. ET, oil was down 29 cents to $128.69.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aRV.3A5ZTECo&refer=india
The market is really looking for light sweet crude and there isn't really a huge demand for what Saudi Arabia has to offer,'' said Gerard Burg, an energy and minerals economist at National Australia Bank Ltd. in Melbourne. ``Oil is primarily used as a transport fuel these days and the heavier grades that yield less transport fuels are less desired.''

Arabian oil is no longer in demand. Seems they have run out of "light crude" oil. Or they are pumping less and less of it. Same thing about Iran, they have full reservoirs, even put their oil in tanker ships that wait in the harbor. Nobody wants "heavy crude", not all the refineries can handle it.
And new refineries have not been built for decades.
That is why the prices are going up with 1 or 2 $ a day, and it will accelerate.

Two forums for anybody more interested in this oil stuff :
http://www.peakoil.com/forums.html
http://www.doomers.us/forum2/
 

Gotta love the forum titles:

"Womens' Issues
For issues specific to women such as hygeine, rights, etc. in a post-Peak Oil world "

"Peak Oil and Social Issues
Have a question or opinion about how Peak Oil will affect social issues like race and gender relations? Post it here. "

Perhaps we can have a U75 Chicken-Little forum for the next big bogey man...? :confused: :D
 
Anyone betting against $200 a barrel before the end of the year?
Can't be that certain. Recession may bring the price down, and the market could swing the price around too. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Are any bookies taking bets?
 
Wow. I only just found out. Oil went up $4 on wednesday :eek:

I just sold a car that got 40 mpg. I got three times what I would have gotten for it a year ago. :)

I do see loads more people riding the bus on my way to work.

And oddly, I see almost no one at the stores these day. I wonder what some retailers accounts look like if the parking lots that were previously full are now almost empty.

I heard that some roadway traffic was down 30% in parts of California. I'm not certain its true, but that would be a pretty large drop if it were.
 
Back
Top Bottom