Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Personally after more than 5 years of arguing with people about whether peak oil would arrive this decade or not, I am more than ready to move on, to assume its happening, to no longer bother arguing with bigfish, and to be prepared to eventually look silly if eventually it somehow becomes clear that the peak is not actually arriving anytime soon (or already happened).


I find that the question of global warming/peak oil is a bit irrelevant. What we do know is that just the particulate emissions of burning oil are harmful to humans and animals. The amount of plastic in the environment alone is grotesque. Oil produces so much that doesn't contribute to human health/happiness that I think we can do better. Its lazy not to at least think about alternatives.
 
Well, I don't see it happening because profits are more important than sustainability in our world, but to make a relatively painless (except for property developers) transition to the sort of scenario I was describing you just do it over several decades. Instead of knocking old buildings down and putting up office blocks, you replace them with what amount to urban farms (the Cubans did a lot of stuff like this during the 'special period') So you make the transition fairly gradually.

I can't see the "knock down the buildings" method working around here. We have a completely different climate. I think that the converting old buildings into marijuana grow-op style gardens is a more feasible idea.
 
I find that the question of global warming/peak oil is a bit irrelevant. What we do know is that just the particulate emissions of burning oil are harmful to humans and animals. The amount of plastic in the environment alone is grotesque. Oil produces so much that doesn't contribute to human health/happiness that I think we can do better. Its lazy not to at least think about alternatives.

It's all about conversation and looking after the planet. It's the same stuff that was being preached back when I was a kid. It's the same thing that I preached to my kids.

It seems that being ecologically minded is only fashionable when a profit can be made.

:(
 
Oil produces so much that doesn't contribute to human health/happiness that I think we can do better. Its lazy not to at least think about alternatives.


Well we can't 'do better' despite lots of people thinking about alternatives rather a lot. Im sorry but this sort of wooly wishful thinking is a total denial of reliaty and yet seems to be a worryingly popular view.

And now it looks like time has run out. I find the level of complacency on this staggering. If we are at peak oil it means things could turn pretty unpleasant very quickly (like within the next five years) and then accelrate down hill. Are environmentalists in a comfort zone? Do they think the PO will help combat global warming and therefore to be welcomed or something?
 
And now it looks like time has run out. I find the level of complacency on this staggering. If we are at peak oil it means things could turn pretty unpleasant very quickly (like within the next five years) and then accelrate down hill. Are environmentalists in a comfort zone? Do they think the PO will help combat global warming and therefore to be welcomed or something?

Time to completely avoid the issue has run out, but time to act has only just begun. I am in no way complacent, I expect massive human horror highscore. I am simply of the opinion that nothing substantial would be done until it has to be done, due to the nature of the system we have at the moment. In that sense I believe we'd be unlikely to do much about climate change unless resource limits forced us to. But Im also cynical enough to have considered the possibility that the mission to educate people about climate change, might have been connected to peak oil. I could be wrong, but it seemed like a new level of 'environmental awareness' grew in the 1970s at the same time as there were energy woes, and whether that is a coincidence or not, the issues raised all fit into the discussion about the energy road ahead, and the fundamentals that underpin our way of life.
 
It seems that being ecologically minded is only fashionable when a profit can be made. :(

Or when there is no choice. Not that this would be considered fashionable once the initial few % of cuts were achieved in a feelgood way, and the painful cuts have to begin.

Its going to be hard to sell rationing as sexy or desirable, but I suppose its considered more desirable than total doom.

Fashions and fads dont sound too sustainable to me. A huge question is whether alternative energies, science technology etc, enable the systems of mass production to remain viable at all, let alone profitable.

Whilst the profit motive clearly dominates, I think this is overstated in some peoples views. Some things that are not directly profitable still get done, even in this age. When some vital infrastructure or part of our society is no longer profitable, but is still hugely important in other ways, we will see governments propping up such things.

Even if we take a very sensible path, there are no shortage of opportunities for capitalists in future. If I had any capital to invest on a small scale, with the aim of making profit, I think I would consider that foreign travel will decline in future. So I should setup some business in a currently rundown UK seaside resort. I dont have any capital.
 
get into home insulation, repairs, home-generation installation/maintenance or farming
 
No, the people with the most to lose are those with not much to start with. When energy expediture makes up 50% of your budget compared to 5%, doubling the price of it effectively prices you out. Walking to mcdonalds will be a shock to many Americans, but being unable to afford to heat your home or transport your cattle to market will be much worse.

No, i don't think so.

Many of the poorer people in this world live in hot countries. They don't need to heat their homes. And getting the cattle to the market is easily enough done using legs.

Being a farmer of course means having all the food to start with!
 
It could also become more viable to live in the country. If you use less gasoline in farming it may become necessary to use more human power.

And here's a key. Human power. Machines took over the job of humans. But if we can't fire the machines, then we have to return to human power. And if we look at the first world citizens, and how many hours they spend slumped in front of their tvs, then that's an awful lot power available...
 
The most energy-efficient approach (particularly if you consider food without lots of oil inputs and things like nutrient recycling) is probably to spread back out into something like the old village > market town > small city structure, while still using better tech as far as energy considerations permit.

Which is why i posted that link describing the UN's recognition of the king of thailand's self-sufficiency model for developing world countries. The market is absolutely central to the way of life here, and just about every single village has a market to sell food. Many homes still don't need a fridge.

But everything in countries like the UK has been centralised and depends on a huge amount of energy being used to get it everywhere.
 
All I meant was that it is sometimes all too easy for Europeans to focus on how much worse the USA is, instead of how bad Europe still is.

In a fair world I guess the Western nations whose population & industry use too much energy per head, would reduce their use, whilst developing nations are allowed to increase theirs, till we all meet in the middle. Shame we dont often expect such fairness to prevail.

But in the developing world nation i live in, there's no need to increase usage of energy. The only reason more energy is being used in thailand nowadays is that through the medium of television, and the influence of marketing and advertising, needs are being stimulated and inserted into people's minds, and people now want the western way of living. Debt and false affluence are slowing becoming the currency of daily life, especially in bangkok.

Capitalism western style is a sham and a con. It makes slaves of us all. Slaves to desires for things pumped into our brains day and night.

To save oil and energy, we have to cut desire, which means cutting advertising and debt. It's the western style of life that will need to be reigned in most of all.

Plenty of people in thailand still live off the land and are quite happy in their lives.

I have enough, no more is needed.
 
I'm in in my uncomfort zone. People will get hurt.

Indeed. I can see Hitler-style sceanarios where populist leaders declare that their citizens' have a 'right' to continue to have cheap fuel :( ....no matter whose sand it lies underneath. :hmm:

Several years ago the BNP were already attending Peak Oil seminars, I'm told by friends in the Greens who were also there.
 
Indeed. I can see Hitler-style sceanarios where populist leaders declare that their citizens' have a 'right' to continue to have cheap fuel :( ....no matter whose sand it lies underneath. :hmm:

Several years ago the BNP were already attending Peak Oil seminars, I'm told by friends in the Greens who were also there.

Like peas in a pod.
 
No, i don't think so.

Many of the poorer people in this world live in hot countries. They don't need to heat their homes. And getting the cattle to the market is easily enough done using legs.

Being a farmer of course means having all the food to start with!

Most people in poor countries don't live on farms and will be hugely (like fatally) affecetd by mass unemployment and food and energy prices spiralling upwards.
 
Most people in poor countries don't live on farms and will be hugely (like fatally) affecetd by mass unemployment and food and energy prices spiralling upwards.

Well, just right now there is much more unemployment in UK compared to thailand, examples of developed world countries vs developing world countries.

Furthermore, a lot of employment in the UK these days actually contributes very little to the society. Many jobs have been created simply to keep feeding its own monster, rampant capitalism. They are jobs for jobs sake. People take money out of the society and put nothing concrete back in.

If debt were reeled in tomorrow, then most citizens in the UK would have fuck all, nothing left whatsoever. That would not be the case in thailand where debt does not affect anywhere near the same proportion of its citizens. That is of course changing due to the western model of life being imported/forced into the country.

Vis a vis, i think developed nations will have much more to lose than less-developed ones. And quite right too, since they've been living beyond their means, using too much of the planet's resources due to the rampant capitalist credo and default they live by.
 
Two fundamental questions need to be asked i feel:

first, is this rise in oil prices because of the approaching 'peak oil' phenomenon, or is it because of speculation by those who can, and are out to, exploit the markets for their own financial gain?

Secondly, how can we reliably find out if this huge rise in oil prices is due to one or the other?
 
The world uses a vast amount of oil, and has done for decades now. Its price has gone up and down like a yoyo over the years. What made it do all this in the past when 'peak oil' was not yet upon us?

Why the food shortages now?

Why global warming?

Why projected water shortages?

Why peak oil now?

Why the yanks and british in iraq and afghanistan now?

Why big talk of either US or Israel attacking iran now?

Why all of this happening at the same time?

A likely culprit of course is politics. It's behind just about everything in the economical world, much more than plain demand and supply.

I feel suspicious about all of this. Fear is the oldest weapon in the book with which to control the masses. And we ought to remember that is the prime objective of those in power.
 
A likely culprit of course is politics. It's behind just about everything in the economical world, much more than plain demand and supply.

.


Actually it absolutely the other way around. The fundementals of resource availability, (in this case energy supply) shape the economy and therefore the politics.
 
The fundamentals are pretty clear. Supply has been platued for several years now, yet China et al continue to increase their demand. Refining capacity is at its limits, and Saudi appears to have very little loose prouction capacity.

Oil prices have fluctuated before, but not so relentless upwards as today. In real terms, the 1979 Oil Shock was nearly as expensive as it is right now. However, that price was not reached by steady increase but by the sudden OPEC boycott of suports of israel.

Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.jpg


There is a long term trend since the mid 90's of rising prices. This has never existed before.

When oil has been in depletion for a year, that's when things will really start to hit home. Those will be interesting times indeed.
 
... I feel suspicious about all of this. Fear is the oldest weapon in the book with which to control the masses. And we ought to remember that is the prime objective of those in power.

The prime objective of those in power is fear? or to control the masses?
 
The fundamentals are pretty clear. Supply has been platued for several years now, yet China et al continue to increase their demand. Refining capacity is at its limits, and Saudi appears to have very little loose prouction capacity.

Oil prices have fluctuated before, but not so relentless upwards as today. In real terms, the 1979 Oil Shock was nearly as expensive as it is right now. However, that price was not reached by steady increase but by the sudden OPEC boycott of suports of israel.


There is a long term trend since the mid 90's of rising prices. This has never existed before.

When oil has been in depletion for a year, that's when things will really start to hit home. Those will be interesting times indeed.

The fundamentals are only pretty clear if we can trust the sources from where the information comes from, and also if we're able to analyse what they mean using the correct terms of reference.

It's certainly an interesting graph crispy. You talk of it not being a steady increase back in the opec boycott days, but that's not what i see on the graph. It went from 50 to over 100 very rapidly back then, and now it's gone from 70 to over 110 in a very similar time period.

You're putting the last one down to politics, and this one down to there being less oil etc, or, that 'peak oil' has arrived.

But i need to ask you again mate: how do you know this is all the case? How do you know that saudi appears to not have much 'loose production' capacity, and what is that, and is that temporary or permanent?

There are too many questions for me, and i remain unconvinced either way.

Finally, yes, as you say there is trend of rising prices since the 90s, but again, why? Is it because the US have more control of the world's oil for example?

I think there are many many factors involved, and i cannot see how people, 'experts', can come down so emphatically that peak oil has arrived, and that's why we have these huge price rises.

Another factor: the rise and march onwards and upwards of capitalism in ever more markets (nations)...
 
The fundamentals are pretty clear. Supply has been platued for several years now, yet China et al continue to increase their demand. Refining capacity is at its limits, and Saudi appears to have very little loose prouction capacity.

Oil prices have fluctuated before, but not so relentless upwards as today. In real terms, the 1979 Oil Shock was nearly as expensive as it is right now. However, that price was not reached by steady increase but by the sudden OPEC boycott of suports of israel.

There is a long term trend since the mid 90's of rising prices. This has never existed before.

When oil has been in depletion for a year, that's when things will really start to hit home. Those will be interesting times indeed.

It's all about capacity. The 1979 Oil Shock was mitigated by the US ramping up production to fill the gap, and was helped by fields such as the North Sea coming online. This cannot happen a second time. There's no big supplies left to come online :(

The vulnerability of the global market to sudden curtailment of supply was highlighted by Hurricane Katrina. As the Gulf rigs went offline, the expectation was that Saudi and other bigger oil producers would merely open the sluices another notch and flood the world with the blackstuff to offset the dip in production. When this failed to materialise may have been the first, true warning of what was to come: no spare capacity and rising demand.

We are now intensely vulnerable to the slightest blip. When even attacks on fields in the Niger Delta - a relativelly small producer in global terms - can cause the market to panic, imagine what will happen if Israel hits Iran (the world's second-biggest producer) with nukes. The head of OPEC stated that the per barrel price rise in such an instance would be unimaginable. Nobody knows what it can and would do to a global economy already teetering on the brink.

It's a perfect storm. Peak Oil, the next Great Depression and catastrophic climate change. One would be a bummer. All three..........:(
 
The prime objective of those in power is fear? or to control the masses?

They suffer from greed and delusions of importance. To feed these twin desires, they need to control the rest of us, to stop us stopping them. Fear and strife is the best method that is proven several times over historically.
 
The increases were not an increasing trend. They came as two seperate, sudden shocks. The price bumped up almost overnight. There wasn't a series of months with ever increasing prices, there were many months of flat price, then bump to a new price, then a much bigger bump to a spike, after which there was a rapid decline. The patterns are not the same and they have very different causes.

As for information on the fundamentals, I agree with you - the available information is very poor. Every government on earth would love to know exactly how much oil Saudi really has, but they're not saying (or rather, they're not telling the truth)
 
The world uses a vast amount of oil, and has done for decades now. Its price has gone up and down like a yoyo over the years. What made it do all this in the past when 'peak oil' was not yet upon us?
Until the very late 1960s the oil production capactiy of the US was in excess of demand. This had been true since the opening of the East Texas oil field in 1930, so under the juristiction of the Texas Railroad comission wells were only allowed to pump on certain days of the week to prevent over production. Until 1973 the price of oil was very low and relatively stable.

In 1971 the lower 48 states of the US hit peak production and went into decline and the pumping restrictions were removed. By this time the Saudi Arabia's oil fields, most notably the utterely gianormous Ghawar, had come into production and were now the global swing producer. OPEC had been formed. As the US had lost excess capacity to bring online it no longer acted as a swing producer. In 1973 the Yom Kippur war was fought and Israel recieved a great deal of direct help from the US. In responce Saudi led OPEC in a boycott of oil production. There was no spare capactity to bring online so bidding for oil on the markets went through the roof. The price of oil spiked enormously and there were severe supply shortfalls in the US. In the aftermath OPEC tried to maintain higher prices but competition between members meant they slowly increased market share and new oil provinces came online (such as North Sea), this increased the availablity of oil lowering demand.

The second great oil shock was in 79 when Iran went through a revolution and lost much of its production then Iraq invaded. The aftermath of the 79 oil shock meant that conservation that had been being explored before 79 went into overdrive and world oil consumption fell markedly. New fields in the Soviet Union also came online and as the fields of Iran and Iraq returned to production the price fell as supply outstripped demand. Saudi kept cutting production in the post 80 period to try to maintain a high oil price while other producers increased, then in 85 Saudi calculated that it had sufficient spare capacity that it could simply gain more money from flooding the market with its oil and just take the lower price. It upped its 'reserves' by about 100 billion barrels (OPEC production quotas are based on reserves) and the price collapsed.

From 85 to 2001 the price of oil was very cheap and than during the American Iraq war of 91.

The low cost of oil helped kill of the Soviet economy. Oil production capacity remained ahead of supply inspite of the depleation of US production capacity (which depleated inspite of Alaska North Slope comming online).

In the mid 90s Russian and FSU supply began increasing again (had peaked mid 80s) due to the availability of secondary and tertiary recovery technologies and new investment in infrastructue from the western majors, this helped maintain the over supply in the 90s.

Into the 2000s things have changed, Chinese demand increase has seen global demand increases remain strong while supply increases tailed off and came to a near end in 2005. Oil has slowly ratcheted up in price about $10 a year since 99. In 99 UK North Sea peaked and went into decline and other major provinces also went over the top (Indonesia is now a net importer and no longer in OPEC). Saudi Arabia had maintained publically that it had over 1.5 million barrels a day of shut in capacity it could flood the market with during this period. However the Saudis had long maintained the need of a stable price of oil to make it profitable for producers to invest in new oil fields but not so high that investment in new energy sources and efficiency increases were necessary (the huge drop in global consumption post 79 nearly bankrupted the kingdom). Saudi loudly and often proclaimed it determined the global price of oil with its shut in oil production (it famously displayed this capacity by turning on the taps in Gulf War I and durning the early part of the Iran Iraq war).

But as the price raised through the 90s and the Saudis did not increase oil production doubts began to emerge, at first the price run up was given as a 'security premium' due to US tensions with and later invasion of Iraq. Then as the price moved above $60 and the Saudis did not act people began charging more and more for there oil, no one was bringing on excess supply to quell the price runup. Buyers became more frantic and poor nations began to get bidded out of the market. By 2007 oil was trading at $80-$90 but there was no collapse of demand or new supply. When Saudi and Iran offered there spare capacity the markets did not want it. It was sulphur rich, low API (low 20s) dirty hard to refine oil, this kind of oil creates maintenance problems with refinaries and is very hard to convert to diesel and petrol.

Then the bull run kicked off in grand style Speculation, probibly, lack of supply, well lack of 30 API plus definenetly, weak dollar: offcourse, every excuse is true to some point. Good for Saudi. Nope. Its killing US airlines and killed US SUV factories. Its killing structural demand.

Where will oil go? Dunno. If I knew that Id be laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Is it because the US have more control of the world's oil for example?
The International Oil Companies (BP, Shell, Exxon Mobile, TOTAL and so on) control about 13% of the world proven reserves. The National Oil Companies (the likes of Saudi Aramco, Lukoil, National Iranian Oil Company) control the rest.

The oil majors make much of there money subcontracting to the NOCs.
 
But i need to ask you again mate: how do you know this is all the case? How do you know that saudi appears to not have much 'loose production' capacity, and what is that, and is that temporary or permanent?
Saudi has a couple of big projects comming online. However we know alot about them as they are fields that were first explored and exploited before Aramco was nationalised. Aramco was originaly a partnership of several international oil companies to explore and exploit Suadi oil. The deal was signed with old king Faisal round about WWII when Saudi was about the most backward nation on earth. Until 1980 there was quite alot of information released about Saudi oil fields as the companies that owned Aramco had to make reserve filings with the Securities and Exchange comission and western petrolium geolgist released many studies of the fields in the course of there work. Only after nationalisation when Aramco became Saudi Aramco did the information dry up. The new fields are all originaly found and drilled in the 60s and 70s but shut in due to there low flow rates poor oil and remoteness. Al Khurais and Manifa are amoung the biggest while Haradh III is simply and extention to keep Gahwar going as other parts of the field deplete. We can make a pretty good estimate of future Saudi flowrates from these fields and they should add an estimated million barrels a day (edited to add but this is often assumed to basicaly offset declines). This is all top of my head stuff and I could put together something more substantial with better numbers from Oil Drum and other sources.....


E2A
june2008_saudi_arabia_17.png

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4201#more


If you read the article it is very detailed about whether Saudi will increase production all that much or not.
 
Well if these issues are even half as big as we think they are, then the year will come that there is a whole subforum dedicated to energy issues, not just a few threads? Certainly this year I have found it more difficult than ever to have linear discussions, as all the different energy strains are starting to make themselves felt in so many different ways. Electricity, nuclear, renewables, climate change, peak oil, peak gas, peak other things, war, economic wibbles, they are all overlapping clearly now.

Seconded! Crispy - what's the deal for getting a new forum set up? can we have an 'energy' subforum setup? There are so many issues plaited together in this thread and as elbows says, it's going to become an increasingly important topic (as if it isn't important enough already). An uber-long thread like this also isn't going to attract others to either join in or find out more.
 
Back
Top Bottom