If they do cut us off, they better be prepared to duck under their desks and kiss their butts good bye as we come in and take their oil. Peace can only last so long before we start getting teed off at the high price of gas.

not a good excuse for a war, that's just plain imperialism.

a better solution is if more countries would sell their oil in euros instead of dollars I think prices won't go up that fast. Good for us and the USA. :)

Peak Oil Hits Mainstream - CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747947551&play=1)

I think Iraq has proved the insanity and stupidity of thinking that we can run an oil industry in an occupied country. It will always be easier to sabotage the production than it is to defend it.

Peak Oil Hits Mainstream - CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=747947551&play=1)

Are you that guy who stands at the street corner with the sign "The end is near!"? There is no peak oil. Just stupid environmentalists who wont let us drill for oil.


not a good excuse for a war, that's just plain imperialism.

Which would you rather have, happy drivers and consumers. Or angry and bitter drivers and consumers storming to your presidential house/palace?


a better solution is if more countries would sell their oil in euros instead of dollars I think prices won't go up that fast. Good for us and the USA.
Thats a worst solution I have ever heard! It would weaken the dollar even further if we switched from petrodollars to petroeuros.

Are you that guy who stands at the street corner with the sign "The end is near!"? There is no peak oil. Just stupid environmentalists who wont let us drill for oil.
Do you know what peak oil means?

Have you even watched the clip or are you just going to go about your usual shrill denoucing?

Which would you rather have, happy drivers and consumers. Or angry and bitter drivers and consumers storming to your presidential house/palace?
I would be happy to see people storming the White House. 'Bout time we had such enthusiasm in this country again! Unfortunately but the time the sheeples realize something must be done poor Obama will be the C&C and likely get much undeserved blame.

Thats a worst solution I have ever heard! It would weaken the dollar even further if we switched from petrodollars to petroeuros.
I don't think Phillipe cares about the dollar. ;)

Are you that guy who stands at the street corner with the sign "The end is near!"? There is no peak oil. Just stupid environmentalists who wont let us drill for oil.

So, what would happen with antartica? As soon one country starts drilling we are going to have some bitter conflicts about claimed lands..
Which would you rather have, happy drivers and consumers. Or angry and bitter drivers and consumers storming to your presidential house/palace?

I rather have long-term thinking poeple who had switched to something else... Oh well... If you want to have the murder of several thousands of women and children on your conscience for your car, go ahead
Thats a worst solution I have ever heard! It would weaken the dollar even further if we switched from petrodollars to petroeuros.

It is a way...:mischief:


And who says anything about taking away cars? Here in Belgium the government gives you a bit of money if you had an old car (which uses a lot) and go buy a new car. :D

If we attack Iran they will cut us off completely and we'll likely have $5 (gallon) gasoline overnight (maybe higher). It would likely be the beginning of a major world war.

They don't sell us oil as is. What are they going to cut us off from?

Do you know what peak oil means?
Uhh, yeah I do know what it means and were no where near peak oil that you claim.

Do you deny unconventional sources of Oil?! Oil Tar? Shale Oil? Oil Sands?


Have you even watched the clip or are you just going to go about your usual shrill denoucing?
I have watched the clip and no I'm not going around what you claim "shrill denouncing". The clips are nothing more than environmentalist's fear mongering. There is no peak oil.

We cannot switch to non petroleum based fuels. We need more and will fight to get it drilled. Even if we have to send in tanks to scare off a bunch of environmentalists chained to polar bears just to drill there!

People cannot and will not live in your idealized world of being free from oil and the so called simple life.


I would be happy to see people storming the White House. 'Bout time we had such enthusiasm in this country again!
You still don't get how much anger and pain I feel at the pump. :rolleyes:

The oil price might rise 100% per year from now when the demand grows much faster then the supply as it is today. That would mean 1000 $ per barrel about this time in 2011. About 2018 it would reach the same prize per ton as gold if we are not able to replace it by something that's cheaper. But thats only the worst case scenario.

Uhh, yeah I do know what it means and were no where near peak oil that you claim.
On what do you base this opinion?

Do you deny unconventional sources of Oil?! Oil Tar? Shale Oil? Oil Sands?
No, I don't. But I understand that they're not going to solve the problem.

I have watched the clip and no I'm not going around what you claim "shrill denouncing". The clips are nothing more than environmentalist's fear mongering. There is no peak oil.
How many environmentalists were there in the clip?

We cannot switch to non petroleum based fuels.
We don't have a choice in the long term.

People cannot and will not live in your idealized world of being free from oil and the so called simple life.
I'm afraid you're right.

You still don't get how much anger and pain I feel at the pump. :rolleyes:
I think it goes a little deeper than the pump dear one. Look within. ;)

The oil price might rise 100% per year from now when the demand grows much faster then the supply as it is today. That would mean 1000 $ per barrel about this time in 2011. About 2018 it would reach the same prize per ton as gold if we are not able to replace it by something that's cheaper. But thats only the worst case scenario.
It's not quite as simple as that. But I certainly don't see any declines in the price in the near future except minor drops & plateaus. A severe depression might reduce enough demand to buy us some time but personally I don't think America & Americans could handle a depression. The people of the 1930's were very different from us. Different values. Far less of a sense of entitlement (see CG's posts above for an example). We can't handle a depression, we can't handle $200 or $300/barrel oil. We need a miracle.

On what do you base this opinion?
By the simple fact that there are non-conventional souces of oil (Oil Shale, Oil tar, Shaleoil) and converting Coal into Petroleum (The Germans experimented with that in World War II)


No, I don't. But I understand that they're not going to solve the problem.
I'm sorry to tell you, but they are going to solve the problem whether you like it or not.


I think it goes a little deeper than the pump dear one. Look within. ;)
What in the world are you talking about?

By the simple fact that there are non-conventional souces of oil (Oil Shale, Oil tar, Shaleoil) and converting Coal into Petroleum (The Germans experimented with that in World War II)
Oil Shale, Oil tar, Shaleoil = all the same thing. ;)

And it is not a viable alternative to convential oil because it takes a massive amount of energy to extract and produce, not to mention the environmental cost. Perhaps once oil hits $250/barrel or so shale oil will become economically viable but I'm not sure.

I'm sorry to tell you, but they are going to solve the problem whether you like it or not.
Maybe. But I'm not crossing my fingers.

What in the world are you talking about?
I don't know, like I said, you have to look within. http://www.sunfoodpages.com/forum/graemlins/sleepy.gif

Oil Shale, Oil tar, Shaleoil = all the same thing. ;)

And it is not a viable alternative to convential oil because it takes a massive amount of energy to extract and produce, not to mention the environmental cost. Perhaps once oil hits $250/barrel or so shale oil will become economically viable but I'm not sure.
Shale Oil Economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil#Economics).

It's not as easy to get to as conventional sources, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. I expect oil will get more expensive in the long run, and stay that way - but we're not going to wake up one day and have a catastrophic shortage. ;)

And it is not a viable alternative to convential oil because it takes a massive amount of energy to extract and produce, not to mention the environmental cost. Perhaps once oil hits $250/barrel or so shale oil will become economically viable but I'm not sure.
Sorry to tell you, but they are viable alternatives to conventional oil. You're just afraid of people not kicking the oil habit and afraid of contributing to pollution.


I don't know, like I said, you have to look within. http://www.sunfoodpages.com/forum/graemlins/sleepy.gif
Quit dancing around it. What in the world are you talking about?!

Sorry to tell you, but they are vible alternatives to conventional oil.

Care to mention them ? I am genuinely curious about them.

we can't handle $200 or $300/barrel oil.

We Europeans pay about 1,50€ per litre (8,80 US-$ per gallon) at the fuel stations and the economy is fine ;)

We Europeans pay about 1,50€ per litre (8,80 US-$ per gallon) at the fuel stations and the economy is fine ;)
You guys also have mass transit and tiny little pansy cars. We have....SUV's. :)

We Europeans pay about 1,50€ per litre (8,80 US-$ per gallon) at the fuel stations and the economy is fine ;)
What about when it's 3€ per litre?

BTW, CG and others. I started this thread (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic40387.html) to attempt to educate myself a bit more about oil shale. Personally I don't know why it won't work to bridge the gap (and maybe it will).

I did phrase the question in a presumptive matter (it gets more replies) and it is somewhat of a self-selected group however there's a fair amount of expertise there and also many devil's advocates and a few folks who think we'll be just fine and just like pissing off the "doomers" who deem them cornicopians.

BTW, CG and others. I started this thread (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic40387.html)
Wrong place to start a discussion filled with people who believe in the nonsense and dooming ideology of peak oil


I did phrase the question in a presumptive matter (it gets more replies) and it is somewhat of a self-selected group however there's a fair amount of expertise there and also many devil's advocates and a few folks who think we'll be just fine and just like pissing off the "doomers" who deem them cornicopians.
Self-Selective? Do I sense an elitist forum that wont allow so called "peak oil deniers"?

Wrong place to start a discussion filled with people who believe in the nonsense and dooming ideology of peak oil
Peak oil isn't nonsense or dooming, it doesn't imply anything except that there is only so much of the resource, something which any 3rd grader will know. If I told you once you drink half a glass of water you only have half left will you call me some kind of nut?

Self-Selective? Do I sense an elitist forum that wont allow so called "peak oil deniers"?
Do you even read what I wrote before you start your tirades? They have all types of people there and no one is banned for their belief systems. I very much like their forum layout. Flamey threads are not locked, simply moved to the fun Hall of Flames subforum (not viewable to non-members as it would be somewhat embarassing for site admins :D).

Peak oil isn't nonsense or dooming, it doesn't imply anything except that there is only so much of the resource, something which any 3rd grader will know.
I disagree, Peak oil is quite nonsense. Advalibility of shale oil, oil sands. Not to mention synthetic fossil fuels would make peak oil look like a joke.

As for peak oil being dooming, it is. Saying that it's not dooming is just naive. Think about it, if you told people that there is no more oil for their cars. There will be civil disorder and wars across the globe to fight for the last drop of oil.


Do you even read what I wrote before you start your tirades?
Yes I read what you wrote and no I did not start any tirades. Don't ever accuse me of starting a tirade nor accusing me of not reading what you wrote. Just because I do not agree with this peak oil tripe does not mean that I did not read your statements nor starting a tirade.

I disagree, Peak oil is quite nonsense. Advalibility of shale oil, oil sands.
Again, I believe you should know your definitions before you start spouting. Peak oil means that at some point we will reach a peak of oil extraction. This is a basic fact that eventually fossil fuels will go into decline just as surely as eventually you will die. The only debate is over when and whether we'll be able to transition to renewables in time.

Not to mention synthetic fossil fuels would make peak oil look like a joke.
You're talking about ethanol and whatnot? They are not a real solution and are contributing to the food crisis.

As for peak oil being dooming, it is. Saying that it's not dooming is just naive. Think about it, if you told people that there is no more oil for their cars. There will be civil disorder and wars across the globe to fight for the last drop of oil.
That's why they're not telling you that CivGeneral.

Yes I read what you wrote and no I did not start any tirades. Don't ever accuse me of starting a tirade:lol:
Sigworthy material. :D I love you CivGeneral.

nor accusing me of not reading what you wrote. Just because I do not agree with this peak oil tripe does not mean that I did not read your statements nor starting a tirade.
CivGeneral, are you aware that even CEO's of major oil companies acknowledge peak oil? They just claim it won't happen until the 2030's or so.

I read their responses Narz. I'm rather unimpressed - they aren't citing any sources, just repeating stuff that they're all already sure of, which amounts to "Shale oil won't work!! Stupid fat Americans!!"

The fact is, Shell Oil thinks that they can produce shale oil at $30 a barrel (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html). Can they? Maybe, maybe not. (Although apparently they have a working demonstration of their new process, on which doesn't involve mining it first. Apparently the idea is to heat it up while it's in the ground, and then take the oil which comes out. Pretty cool, actually) Even if it's only viable at five times that price, or $150, and only half the proven shale oil reserves are viable (About 800 billion barrels worth in America alone) then that's enough for $5-6 gallons of gas for quite awhile.

It's not a perfect solution, and is at best a stopgap measure to buy us time to come up with a better idea. But from all that I can tell, it is viable and it will work. Furthermore, a of the things they say would make this unpracticable, or at best a 1:1 conversion can run on electricity alone - it doesn't have to be gasoline or natural gas. Think about it: if we're in a real emergency situation where we can't get enough gas, are we going to be buring natural gas to heat water, or run the machines, or do any of that? You could get the EROEI higher if you really wanted to. (Think nuclear power....which for some reason I could never grasp, greens seem to hate) And while I'm not a mindless optimist, I do think that the human race's ability to figure stuff out when it really has to is very good, and that we'll get by.

As I said a long time ago - human beings are both lazy and greedy. Right now, oil is cheap enough that our laziness is overriding our greediness. When it gets expensive enough that our greed overcomes or desire to keep things as they are, then watch out.

Shale oil is quite viable. But people should know ahead of time that it's environmentally disgusting. You really want to avoid it, if possible (by, say, conserving until alternates are found)

Shale oil is quite viable. But people should know ahead of time that it's environmentally disgusting. You really want to avoid it, if possible (by, say, conserving until alternates are found)
Sure, and the environmental ramification would have to be studied and dealt with. I don't think anyone is saying that this is the perfect solution. But I definitely think we should invest in this technology, so that we have something to fall back on if need be. Research alternatives and build nuclear power plants and do all that other stuff too - but start working on shale oil now, as well, so that we have something to burn in our cars (And tractors, to get us food ;)) if we really need to.

I'm pretty confident that somewhere down the line, we'll figure out a viable, relatively cheap and safe alternative to fossil fuels. All this does is give us extra time to do that, if we need it. :)

BTW, CG and others. I started this thread (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic40387.html) to attempt to educate myself a bit more about oil shale. Personally I don't know why it won't work to bridge the gap (and maybe it will).


They hardly wield convincing arguement, unfortunately. The line Im looking at is 'Im just making these numbers up btw'.

You guys also have mass transit and tiny little pansy cars. We have....SUV's. :)

You guys can get some mass transit and little pansy cars. Call being efficient an 'alternative fuel' :p

One of the worst The end is here there is no salvation only buy our books ... , peak oil theory sites says that Nuclear energy is not viable because we will need 10000 nuclear energy plants to replace all of our current needs. They do the same thing with all alternative sources and one can't notice that they completly forget the fact that it is possible to be a combination of different energy sources which would periodically replace fossil fuels rather than just one . And even they say that only 10000 nuclear plants would have such enormous energy output. Simply , Nuclear energy is amazing and it is not used enough as it should.

Here is the site.http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (i think i got it from here.) It is quite well written , it raises some clever points but the sum of it , is propaganda. Simply because it describes a scenario that will happen without explaining when. And that when plays of great importance on if it happens.

You guys can get some mass transit and little pansy cars. Call being efficient an 'alternative fuel' :p
We have mass transit in the big cities, and they work OK. But outside of those and crappy Greyhound buses, there really isn't much: not many intercity trains, or local transportation.

There's a local bus service where I live, and it's cheap - but it's so horribly unreliable that I would never use it if I didn't have to, or I were going somewhere where I needed to be there by a specific time. (Like school, or work ;)) It varies from exactly on time to an hour late - when it's supposed to be there every hour, and is only supposed to take an hour to go on its route. ;) Mass transit outside of the big cities is either nonexistant, or crappy, as I described above.

Pansy cars suck. :p I don't mind the idea of getting a hybrid or a two door or something, but I'm not getting one of these (http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+pass enger_side_view.jpg). Mostly because they're useless, but almost as much because they look stupid. I'd rather pay more at the pump than drive one of those things.

End of the world predictions are so easy. They can be in the process of coming true forever and hence have been. Anyhow, here are a couple items I'm intimately familiar with due to the ancilliary benefits of recognizing the trends as opportunity.

T. Boone Pickens had this quote recently when asked about why he's building a 4 gigawatt wind farm (the equivalent of building two commercial scale nuclear power plants - enough power for about 1 million homes).

He said "Don't get the idea that I've turned green. My business is making money, and I think this is going to make a lot of money."

Anyone who's driven across the middle of the USA is seeing the landscape changing very rapidly because of this trend.

Now that couples with companies like AFS Trinity in Livermore, CA. and UK based Ricardo PLC who've developed a plug in hybrid (retrofit to boot) lithium ion battery with ultracapacitors (for the quick burst). Right now I believe it would cost ~$7500 more but can run 40 miles without any gasoline. That's 80% of what people in the US drive in a day.

There's alternatives being developed and are available but it has to be commercially viable too. $8700 is getting a lot of people closer to that figure (~1500 to 1900 gallons breakeven right now) and less as the fleets acquire the technology and that's their first market for retrofit. The issue that becomes a longer term problem is where to get the lithium for the batteries as this spreads?

End of the world predictions are so easy. They can be in the process of coming true forever and hence have been. Anyhow, here are a couple items I'm intimately familiar with due to the ancilliary benefits of recognizing the trends as opportunity.

T. Boone Pickens had this quote recently when asked about why he's building a 4 gigawatt wind farm (the equivalent of building two commercial scale nuclear power plants - enough power for about 1 million homes).

He said "Don't get the idea that I've turned green. My business is making money, and I think this is going to make a lot of money."

Now that couples with companies like AFS Trinity in Livermore, CA. and UK based Ricardo PLC who've developed a plug in hybrid (retrofit to boot) lithium ion battery with ultracapacitors (for the quick burst). Right now I believe it would cost ~$7500 more but can run 40 miles without any gasoline. That's 80% of what people in the US drive in a day.

There's alternatives being developed and are available but it has to be commercially viable too. $7500 is getting a lot of people closer to that figure (~1500 to 1900 gallons breakeven right now) and less as the fleets acquire the technology and that's their first market for retrofit. The issue that becomes a longer term problem is where to get the lithium for the batteries as this spreads?

Ι always thought the problem was the batteries themselfs and not the cost of the alternative energy sources. Simply the battery technology has not progressed much during this decade. I think this is something that science should focus on as is just as important as improving the energy output of renewable energy sources.

I read their responses Narz. I'm rather unimpressed - they aren't citing any sources, just repeating stuff that they're all already sure of, which amounts to "Shale oil won't work!! Stupid fat Americans!!"

The fact is, Shell Oil thinks that they can produce shale oil at $30 a barrel (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html). Can they? Maybe, maybe not. (Although apparently they have a working demonstration of their new process, on which doesn't involve mining it first. Apparently the idea is to heat it up while it's in the ground, and then take the oil which comes out. Pretty cool, actually) Even if it's only viable at five times that price, or $150, and only half the proven shale oil reserves are viable (About 800 billion barrels worth in America alone) then that's enough for $5-6 gallons of gas for quite awhile.

It's not a perfect solution, and is at best a stopgap measure to buy us time to come up with a better idea. But from all that I can tell, it is viable and it will work. Furthermore, a of the things they say would make this unpracticable, or at best a 1:1 conversion can run on electricity alone - it doesn't have to be gasoline or natural gas. Think about it: if we're in a real emergency situation where we can't get enough gas, are we going to be buring natural gas to heat water, or run the machines, or do any of that? You could get the EROEI higher if you really wanted to. (Think nuclear power....which for some reason I could never grasp, greens seem to hate) And while I'm not a mindless optimist, I do think that the human race's ability to figure stuff out when it really has to is very good, and that we'll get by.
You haven't cited any sources either.

If you read my other posts on that forum I tend to go back & forth playing devil's advocate on both sides because that's the best way to spurn discussion.

I do think we're in for some major turmoil and I'm not confident that we'll be able to shift our entire infrastructure within 10-15 years. I don't think some of the worst, worst case scenarios some postulate will come to pass either though.

I'm not going to be doing anything in the next ten years I wouldn't want to do anyway. Thoreau didn't need peak oil & neither do I. Contrary to some accusations I'm not "wishing it was here to save the planet and stop us from burning fossil fuels" since coal is worse than oil and will likely be one of the main attempts to bridge the gap. I do hope the recession, energy, food & water crises help people walk up and take ecological and social responsibility, as a culture we're not really encouraged (besides by a few soundsbites) to think outside our own backyards. At least not in any meaningful sense (write a paper about air pollution or Nambia's economy and then forget about it).

Ι always thought the problem was the batteries themselfs and not the cost of the alternative energy sources. Simply the battery technology has not progressed much during this decade. I think this is something that science should focus on as is just as important as improving the energy output of renewable energy sources.
I spoke with the chief technology officer of AFS Trinity Donald Bender (smart guy...BS and MS in mech engineering from MIT) at the Detroit auto show and the way he explained it is their battery is different than the automakers products in that they've patented the use of the ultracapacitors. This allows for the car to surge and accelerate without overheating the battery.

Here's some video links.

http://www.afstrinity.com/video.htm

You haven't cited any sources either.
Yes I did. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html) Here it is again.

If you read my other posts on that forum I tend to go back & forth playing devil's advocate on both sides because that's the best way to spurn discussion.
And that's good.

I do think we're in for some major turmoil and I'm not confident that we'll be able to shift our entire infrastructure within 10-15 years. I don't think some of the worst, worst case scenarios some postulate will come to pass either though.
But we're not going to be out of oil in 10-15 years. :crazyeye: Oil prices will be higher, but there will still be plenty of oil to go around.

I'm not going to be doing anything in the next ten years I wouldn't want to do anyway. Thoreau didn't need peak oil & neither do I. Contrary to some accusations I'm not "wishing it was here to save the planet and stop us from burning fossil fuels" since coal is worse than oil and will likely be one of the main attempts to bridge the gap. I do hope the recession, energy, food & water crises help people walk up and take ecological and social responsibility, as a culture we're not really encouraged (besides by a few soundsbites) to think outside our own backyards. At least not in any meaningful sense (write a paper about air pollution or Nambia's economy and then forget about it).
Hey, I never said our society was perfect. I agree that we really do need to rethink some of our priorities, and make more of an effort to get alternatives to the gas guzzling SUV as our primary source of transportation. But I'm also not panicking: and that's where the Peak Oil people lose me. This is something that deserves to be talked about, but it's not the end of the world, and civilization as we know it isn't going to collapse. :p And even if you don't think that yourself, you're still associating with a movement where ideas like that are commonplace, and so you're 'tainted' by that.

We have mass transit in the big cities, and they work OK. But outside of those and crappy Greyhound buses, there really isn't much: not many intercity trains, or local transportation.

There's a local bus service where I live, and it's cheap - but it's so horribly unreliable that I would never use it if I didn't have to, or I were going somewhere where I needed to be there by a specific time. (Like school, or work ;)) It varies from exactly on time to an hour late - when it's supposed to be there every hour, and is only supposed to take an hour to go on its route. ;) Mass transit outside of the big cities is either nonexistant, or crappy, as I described above.

Pansy cars suck. :p I don't mind the idea of getting a hybrid or a two door or something, but I'm not getting one of these (http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+pass enger_side_view.jpg). Mostly because they're useless, but almost as much because they look stupid. I'd rather pay more at the pump than drive one of those things.

Interesting. If oil prices continue on an upward trend, it should be fascinating to see at what point mass transit starts to visibly increase both quality and quantity.

And how many Americans overcome their aesthetic senses ;)

Interesting. If oil prices continue on an upward trend, it should be fascinating to see at what point mass transit starts to visibly increase both quality and quantity.

And how many Americans overcome their aesthetic senses ;)
It happens very quickly in urban areas of the US. There's precedence for this when prices spiked in the early 70's.

Today there's even more choices like in my city there's a growing number of people using car sharing programs like Igo and zipcars. No gas, no insurance, 150 miles a day and $8.50/hour. So far this year I'm making money on the deal since I write off the business usage 100% and rent my car space in my building for $200 which nets cash back to me so far this year. :D

Here's a youtube video of the one I use.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=znXK8n0F6N0

Again, I believe you should know your definitions before you start spouting.Again, I know my defentions very well. and no I dont go about spouting. Now grow up and quit with the Ad hominems.


This is a basic fact that eventually fossil fuels will go into decline just as surely as eventually you will die.
Actualy, that is false. But I guess you never heard of synthetic fossil fuels.


You're talking about ethanol and whatnot? They are not a real solution and are contributing to the food crisis.
Whether you like it or not, ethanol is a real solution and does not need to contribute to the so called food crisis. Heck you can even get alcohol (Methanol) out of trees.


CivGeneral, are you aware that even CEO's of major oil companies acknowledge peak oil? They just claim it won't happen until the 2030's or so.
Narz, are you aware that even back in the 1960s there were claims that peak oil would happen in the mid 1970s. Apparently there was no peak oil then. And no OPEC deciding to boycott the West and restrict their exports of oil does not count.

I love that you pay for your transportation out of the profit of subletting your parking space! :lol:

Sure, and the environmental ramification would have to be studied and dealt with.

I worked for about a month for a firm which helps extract oil from the tar sands. The technology is certainly there, along with mounds of paperwork (:)), etc.

But the environment up there is disgusting. Absolutely gross. The smog (if you call it that) is visible from hundreds of miles away. But no one there cares, they're all early-30s not-caring-about-lung-cancer making money hand-over-fist.

The environmental ramifications won't be dealt with, you'll have to trust me, not when there's money on the line.

Interesting. If oil prices continue on an upward trend, it should be fascinating to see at what point mass transit starts to visibly increase both quality and quantity.

And how many Americans overcome their aesthetic senses ;)
Hopefully soon. :) Honestly, I don't enjoy driving that much - I don't hate it, I just don't find it particularly enjoyable, and it's expensive - but when there isn't any other option, there isn't much you can do. Most people here can't take public transportation or walk or ride a bike to work.

Haha, I doubt it. ;) America has always had a love affair with the automobile, and as Americans we love real cars. Not those sissy little boxes on wheels.

I worked for about a month for a firm which helps extract oil from the tar sands. The technology is certainly there, along with mounds of paperwork (:)), etc.

But the environment up there is disgusting. Absolutely gross. The smog (if you call it that) is visible from hundreds of miles away. But no one there cares, they're all early-30s not-caring-about-lung-cancer making money hand-over-fist.

The environmental ramifications won't be dealt with, you'll have to trust me, not when there's money on the line.
Well, the process is very different for extracting oil from oil shale as opposed to tar sands. The "regular" process, where it's dug up, moved, heated and so on, is very environmentally destructive. The process they're working on now, though, actually involves heating the shale up while it's in the ground, and seems to cause significantly less damage to the environment. We'll see if that pans out on a large scale, but it seems to work: last I heard, they'd got it working on a small scale.

But I get your point: when push comes to shove, we'll take the oil, and worry about the environment first. Maybe that sucks, but it may be necessary to buy us the kind of time we need to change our lifestyles, methods of transportation, and types of fuels.

I really did work with that type of technology. We injected high-pressure steam deep into the ground to liquify the bitumen. Well, I didn't work with it, I more read about it while pushing paper.

Yes I did. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html) Here it is again.
That's not a source.

It's a journalist lapping up everything Shell oil tells her.

"I'll say it again. Wow." What kind of way to end an article is that?


But we're not going to be out of oil in 10-15 years. :crazyeye: Oil prices will be higher, but there will still be plenty of oil to go around.
I didn't say we'd be "out of oil" in 15 years. That a common confusion people have with peak oil. It doesn't mean we'll run out, it just means it will become more & more expensive.

Hey, I never said our society was perfect. I agree that we really do need to rethink some of our priorities, and make more of an effort to get alternatives to the gas guzzling SUV as our primary source of transportation. But I'm also not panicking: and that's where the Peak Oil people lose me. This is something that deserves to be talked about, but it's not the end of the world, and civilization as we know it isn't going to collapse. :p And even if you don't think that yourself, you're still associating with a movement where ideas like that are commonplace, and so you're 'tainted' by that.
Peak oil isn't the only factor in the potential collapse of civilization as we know it.

Keep in mind civilization as we know it =/ humanity. Humanity will be fine (so sorry folks words like "doomsday" and "endtimes" don't apply) but soceities will have to be restructured pretty much from the ground up. I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know the exact nature of what will development but I can say with some confidence that the future won't be the exact same as the present + a few more electronic gizmos as is the popular cultural belief.

Again, I know my defentions very well. and no I dont go about spouting. Now grow up and quit with the Ad hominems.
I'm not attacking you. Just pointing out when you don't know what you're saying.

Actualy, that is false. But I guess you never heard of synthetic fossil fuels.
Of course I have, they're a contributing factor to the food crisis. IMO, our only real hope in the bio-fuels department is super efficient algae farms but that still seems decades away.

Whether you like it or not, ethanol is a real solution and does not need to contribute to the so called food crisis. Heck you can even get alcohol (Methanol) out of trees.
I have only seen one article/expert out of dozens who claimed ethanol is a real solution. Sorry, I think your thinking is faith-based here.

Narz, are you aware that even back in the 1960s there were claims that peak oil would happen in the mid 1970s. Apparently there was no peak oil then. And no OPEC deciding to boycott the West and restrict their exports of oil does not count.
CG, again you got your history all wrong. M. King Hubbert predicted in the 60's that US oil supplies would peak in 1970. He was generally ridiculed by his peers & journalists. The took great glee in pointing out in 1970 that the US was then producing more oil than it ever had in it's history.... and even did. US oil production (not world production) peaked in 1970 and has been in decline since then (a few bumps for new finds but nothing to reverse the overall trend).

http://i31.tinypic.com/15hkilx.jpg

And to everyone, a word of caution about "trusting the experts".

Let's see how "expert" opinion on oil prices has faired against reality for the last half decade.

http://marvinmoss.com/YerginFAIL.jpg

Narz what do you think about this site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net ?

Narz what do you think about this site http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net ?
It was one of the first "peak oil" sites I came across but I'm not on board with his vision. He's a bit too doomy even for my taste. On the peakoil boards there are many different types of beliefs. Besides doomers vs. cornicopians there is the fast crash vs. slow decline debate (some see a light at the end of the tunnel after the long decline, others see an eventually burden upon the modern industrial system that is too great and it must collapse & reorganize).

I fall into the slow decline category and lean towards society (as it is today) not being able to adapt but I would say we do have some chance (25-50% maybe) of being able to pull out of it through technological advances & social and political reorganization.

Narz - Are the "fast die off" people really for real? (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic29090.html) (pretty sure Matt Savinar, the LATOC guy posts in it)

I'll pull up some more threads in a bit.

MonteQuest had some very good ones.

Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34384.html)

Population Reduction and Rebuttal Thread (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic10093.html)

By the way, I met that MonteQuest guy when I was in Sedona. He walks his talk 100% (in regards to his thoughts on over population). He hasn't had any kids and claims if he got severely injured he would decline life-saving surgery/treatment.

One more interesting one - What if we are all wasting our time (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic34162.html)

I'm not attacking you. Just pointing out when you don't know what you're saying.
I'm going to call BS on that when I see statements like "CG, again you got your history all wrong." and "Sorry, I think your thinking is faith-based here.". And to tell you right now, I freeking know what I am saying. So lay off the ad hominems.


Of course I have, they're a contributing factor to the food crisis. IMO, our only real hope in the bio-fuels department is super efficient algae farms but that still seems decades away.
First of all, who cares about the food crisis? We have plenty to go around here. Second, do you deny that there are non-food sources for ethanol and other alcohols?!

I'm going to have to call your thinking on biofuels is merely faith-based here buddy. Bio diesel is only good for one type of engine, the diesel engine. Bio diesel is completely worthless and unusable in a conventional internal combustion engine found in an a gas fueled engine.


I have only seen one article/expert out of dozens who claimed ethanol is a real solution. Sorry, I think your thinking is faith-based here.
I'm sorry but my thinking is not faith-based here buddy. Don't cry me a river about the food shortage when there are indeed other sources besides siphoning our granaries for fuel :rolleyes:.


CG, again you got your history all wrong. M. King Hubbert predicted in the 60's that US oil supplies would peak in 1970. He was generally ridiculed by his peers & journalists. The took great glee in pointing out in 1970 that the US was then producing more oil than it ever had in it's history.... and even did. US oil production (not world production) peaked in 1970 and has been in decline since then (a few bumps for new finds but nothing to reverse the overall trend).
Sorry buddy, but I don't have my history wrong here. Let's take a look, I said the Peak Oil has been around since the 1960s that it would happen in the 1970s and it never happene. I'd think it's you who's gotten their history all wrong. Not me buddy. So knock off attacking me with crapola filled with ad hominems.


http://i31.tinypic.com/15hkilx.jpg

That graph does not take into account of non conventional sources of oil as well as undiscovered patches of oil and oil that is beneath land that is sooooo precious to the environmentalists that they want a ban on oil drilling there :rolleyes:.


And to everyone, a word of caution about "trusting the experts".

Let's see how "expert" opinion on oil prices has faired against reality for the last half decade.

http://marvinmoss.com/YerginFAIL.jpg
Whether you like it or not, That's what has been happening ever since the bogus notion of peak oil was tossed around like the next big end of times apocalypse scenario. People cry that were having peak oil then suddenly we discover a new patch and suddenly there is no peak oil.

It was one of the first "peak oil" sites I came across but I'm not on board with his vision. He's a bit too doomy even for my taste. On the peakoil boards there are many different types of beliefs. Besides doomers vs. cornicopians there is the fast crash vs. slow decline debate (some see a light at the end of the tunnel after the long decline, others see an eventually burden upon the modern industrial system that is too great and it must collapse & reorganize).

I fall into the slow decline category and lean towards society (as it is today) not being able to adapt but I would say we do have some chance (25-50% maybe) of being able to pull out of it through technological advances & social and political reorganization.

Narz - Are the "fast die off" people really for real? (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic29090.html) (pretty sure Matt Savinar, the LATOC guy posts in it)

I'll pull up some more threads in a bit.




Yes i can't stand Doomers.
Judging from the posts there unfortunately it seems there too many of them.


But although slow decline is an interesting concept i would say that even it , is not a certainty.


The problem with most peak oil theorists is that they take let's say a fact , that oil is not a renewable source and add to it unprovable theories. Predictions require more work than that.


I'll pull up some more threads in a bit.

MonteQuest had some very good ones.

Peak Oil : Scalability and Orders of Magnitude

Population Reduction and Rebuttal Thread

By the way, I met that MonteQuest guy when I was in Sedona. He walks his talk 100% (in regards to his thoughts on over population). He hasn't had any kids and claims if he got severely injured he would decline life-saving surgery/treatment.

One more interesting one - What if we are all wasting our time

Thanks . I will check them out.


Whether the world is overpopulated and whether that is a problem is a very complex matter. Whatever the case is Overpopulation is not a reason not to have kids as having a child is a personal thing.

Yes i can't stand Doomers.
Judging from the posts there unfortunately it seems there too many of them.
I cant stand Doomers and Peakniks. Way to pessimistic and depressing for my taste and tend to be the "ABANDON YOUR LIFESTYLE AND LIVE LIKE A CAVEMEN!" mentality

That's not a source.

It's a journalist lapping up everything Shell oil tells her.

"I'll say it again. Wow." What kind of way to end an article is that?
It's a source, and certainly a better one than a Peak Oil internet forum. :lol:

Prove to me that shale oil isn't economically viable at $100+ a barrel. (With sources, if at all possible) If you can't do that, then you have no room to talk.

I didn't say we'd be "out of oil" in 15 years. That a common confusion people have with peak oil. It doesn't mean we'll run out, it just means it will become more & more expensive.
No, you didn't, and I'm well aware of what peak oil is.

Peak oil isn't the only factor in the potential collapse of civilization as we know it.

Keep in mind civilization as we know it =/ humanity. Humanity will be fine (so sorry folks words like "doomsday" and "endtimes" don't apply) but soceities will have to be restructured pretty much from the ground up. I don't claim to have a crystal ball or to know the exact nature of what will development but I can say with some confidence that the future won't be the exact same as the present + a few more electronic gizmos as is the popular cultural belief.
Ludicrous. Society isn't going to collapse. It won't stay the same - it would be equally ludicrous to claim that it would - but all this doom and gloom is misplaced. We're in a tough spot, and we've got our work cut out for us, but the world as we know it isn't going to go away.

"First of all, who cares about the food crisis? We have plenty to go around here."

The truth comes out, you don't care because you don't see how it effects you.

I'm not going to reply to your other "points" because they're not saying anything.

I cant stand Doomers and Peakniks. Way to pessimistic and depressing for my taste and tend to be the "ABANDON YOUR LIFESTYLE AND LIVE LIKE A CAVEMEN!" mentality

"And don't forget to buy our books which is the only place where you can find information on how to save yourself "

"First of all, who cares about the food crisis? We have plenty to go around here."
The food crisis is almost certainly a direct result of the oil crisis. Seeing as how the food crisis happened very quickly after the second.

If people in oil-producing nations want their food to be affordable again, they're going to have to sell their oil for cheap, and that's just how it's going to be.

"First of all, who cares about the food crisis? We have plenty to go around here."

The truth comes out, you don't care because you don't see how it effects you.
Sorry, the truth does not come out. We have plenty of food to go around, the problem is the longistics of actualy distributing the food. I don't care about the food crisis not because I don't see how it effects me. I know exactly how it effects me but I live in a place of plenty so a concern about a food crisis in MY area takes a low priority. If you ask me about the WORLD food crisis, then I would care about it.

Don't freeking go around assuming with what little information I give out that you suddenly assume a certain thing.


I'm not going to reply to your other "points" because they're not saying anything.
Actually, my points do actually say something here buddy. Dont dance around and avoid replying my points.

Am I advocating for total use of ethonal fuels and using our food supplies for it. No, I'm not. Think about it, where does methane comes from? From rotting decaying biological matter which does not have an effect to the food supplies. A smart chemist would figure out how to link the methane molecules into a hydrocarbon chain.

Quit being a difficult peaknik hippy for Christ sakes :rolleyes:.

The problem with most peak oil theorists is that they take let's say a fact , that oil is not a renewable source and add to it unprovable theories. Predictions require more work than that.
It is a fact that oil is a non-renewable source. :confused:

Thanks . I will check them out.
Cool. :)

Whether the world is overpopulated and whether that is a problem is a very complex matter. Whatever the case is Overpopulation is not a reason not to have kids as having a child is a personal thing.
Indeed but it's also an ecological, social & political thing.

There is really no excuse for stuff like this (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/2004family__duggar.jpg). People should not be economically rewarded for having kids at the very least. They already get free public school & all sorts of other social programs for children and parents.

It's a source, and certainly a better one than a Peak Oil internet forum. :lol:
Not really. An editorial (basicly seems more like an ad for Shell to me) isn't really much different from a forum thread. And at least on a forum thread you get alternative opinions.

Prove to me that shale oil isn't economically viable at $100+ a barrel. (With sources, if at all possible) If you can't do that, then you have no room to talk.
Burden of proof is on the one making the outragious claim - you. You first claimed (because Shell claimed) it was viable at $30/barrel, now $100. Make up your mind and please prove either.

Ludicrous. Society isn't going to collapse. It won't stay the same - it would be equally ludicrous to claim that it would - but all this doom and gloom is misplaced. We're in a tough spot, and we've got our work cut out for us, but the world as we know it isn't going to go away.
Time will tell.

I cant stand Doomers and Peakniks. Way to pessimistic and depressing for my taste and tend to be the "ABANDON YOUR LIFESTYLE AND LIVE LIKE A CAVEMEN!" mentality
Not really. You don't even know about any of these people. Am I like that? No. More baseless shrill accusations

Sorry, the truth does not come out.
You can't hide forever. :D

Actually, my points do actually say something here buddy. Dont dance around and avoid replying my points.
There are no points.

Am I advocating for total use of ethonal fuels and using our food supplies for it. No, I'm not. Think about it, where does methane comes from? From rotting decaying biological matter which does not have an effect to the food supplies. A smart chemist would figure out how to link the methane molecules into a hydrocarbon chain.
Yes, it is possible to create fuel from waste vegetable matter but this technology is still very primitive.

Quit being a difficult peaknik hippy for Christ sakes :rolleyes:.
I'd appreciate if you'd stop flaming. http://img.kelkoo.com/uk/small/082/568/32953047313032699569963390449904568082.jpg

"And don't forget to buy our books which is the only place where you can find information on how to save yourself "
That's a common criticism of Mr. Savinar. He gets a lot of s*** on the forums. There are some pretty funny threads you might run across. If any get bumped I'll post them.

The earth has a gooey center of oil that will never run out. No worries. :)

Not really. You don't even know about any of these people. Am I like that? No. More baseless shrill accusations
Just like when you assumed the truth came out when I said that "I did not care about the local food crisis" and automatically assumed that I don't care about it because I don't see it :rolleyes:.

You accuse me of baseless shrill accusations, well here's going right back at ya.

Just like when you assumed the truth came out when I said that "I did not care about the local food crisis" and automatically assumed that I don't care about it because I don't see it :rolleyes:.

You accuse me of baseless shrill accusations, well here's going right back at ya.
One question there "buddy". If I'm wrong & everything's hunky-doky, why are you getting so agitated?

There is really no excuse for stuff like this (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/2004family__duggar.jpg). People should not be economically rewarded for having kids at the very least. They already get free public school & all sorts of other social programs for children and parents.
I heard that Jamie is pregnant. If that's so, are you volunteering to pay for your child's schooling, K-12? And all of your child's healthcare costs, and accept no government handouts or welfare whatsoever? If not, stop being a hypocrite.

If that's not so, just ignore it. :)

Not really. An editorial (basicly seems more like an ad for Shell to me) isn't really much different from a forum thread. And at least on a forum thread you get alternative opinions.
:lol: Whatever man.

Burden of proof is on the one making the outragious claim - you. You first claimed (because Shell claimed) it was viable at $30/barrel, now $100. Make up your mind and please prove either.
Shell claimed $30 a barrel. I decided to be generous, and assume that they were wildly optimistic, and I wanted to see you could prove that it wouldn't be viable at $100 a barrel. I'm not changing my opinion, I'm focusing the argument. (And I'm being generous by assuming that it is much harder and more expensive than they say)

I'm not making an outrageous claim. I'm making a reasonable claim backed by evidence. Now if you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it. But honestly, I doubt you have any, or would post it if you did: you're more interested in doom and gloom theories than you are in having an actual debate. I could go into why I think that's so - and I definitely do think there's an underlying reason - but that's not necessary. What is necessary for this conversation to continue is for you to actually try and show why shale oil isn't economically viable, at a realistic global oil price in the future.

Time will tell.
Yes, it will. :)

You can't hide forever. :D
Actualy I am not hiding. I am telling you the whole story where you painted me with baseless shrill accusations.


There are no points.
Actualy, there are points in that post. You dont see that there are any points because you dont agree with them. Dont like my points, oh well. I'm not spending all night arguing.


Yes, it is possible to create fuel from waste vegetable matter but this technology is still very primitive.
Then get cracking on it and it does not have to be from waste vegtable matter. It can come from anything; wood, gardening matter, sewage waste.


I'd appreciate if you'd stop flaming. http://img.kelkoo.com/uk/small/082/568/32953047313032699569963390449904568082.jpg
I'd appreciate if you did the same


One question there "buddy". If I'm wrong & everything's hunky-doky, why are you getting so agitated?
Let's see, the conduct you made here. You assume that I don't know the definition of what "peak oil" is when I actually know what it means and assume that I have not read or watched the videos when I actually have. Calling my thinking "faith-based".

It is a fact that oil is a non-renewable source. :confused:


Cool. :)


Indeed but it's also an ecological, social & political thing.

There is really no excuse for stuff like this (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/2004family__duggar.jpg). People should not be economically rewarded for having kids at the very least. They already get free public school & all sorts of other social programs for children and parents.


Not really. An editorial (basicly seems more like an ad for Shell to me) isn't really much different from a forum thread. And at least on a forum thread you get alternative opinions.


Burden of proof is on the one making the outragious claim - you. You first claimed (because Shell claimed) it was viable at $30/barrel, now $100. Make up your mind and please prove either.


Time will tell.


Not really. You don't even know about any of these people. Am I like that? No. More baseless shrill accusations

It is a fact that oil is a non-renewable source.
Well , today . Yes. Which means with increased consumption the oil supply get fewer.

However this is just some data that are not enough to make a doomsday scenario. The world may not even decline . Since there are some less industrialized regions more oil consumption will not lead into world decline until we reach a phase where there are just too few energy efficient energy sources remaing and the economy can't sustain it self. Unless we find -create plenty of energy efficient sources.

While we are transitioning their may be a decline in some parts of the world but the increase of consumption in other parts of the world may overgrow that decline.

Not even a slow decline is guaranteed. A decline of the growth , Yes i believe this will happen.




Indeed but it's also an ecological, social & political thing.
.

Indeed but it's also an ecological, social & political thing.

Those should been of less importance to a person. And like i said it is not certain that overpopulation is a problem.



There is really no excuse for stuff like this (http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/2004family__duggar.jpg). People should not be economically rewarded for having kids at the very least. They already get free public school & all sorts of other social programs for children and parents

It depends. There are societies that have so low birth rates that they won't be able to sustain them selfs if their isn't an increase. It is less of a reward and more of an encouraging so that we may solve a problem thing.

I heard that Jamie is pregnant. If that's so, are you volunteering to pay for your child's schooling, K-12? And all of your child's healthcare costs, and accept no government handouts or welfare whatsoever? If not, stop being a hypocrite.
I'm allowed to be a hypocrit. And since we're getting into personal territory here I'll say I'm against subsidizing all but the most incapable individuals and I tried to cancel my own disability income in '03 but they did not stop paying me so what can I do but the best I can. I don't plan on sending my kid(s) to public schools. I don't believe I deserve tax breaks or benefits either but I'm not going to turn them away.

If that's not so, just ignore it. :)
Who told you that? (tell me here or via PM)

:lol: Whatever man.
You know I'm right. An editorial is not a valid source.

Shell claimed $30 a barrel. I decided to be generous, and assume that they were wildly optimistic, and I wanted to see you could prove that it wouldn't be viable at $100 a barrel. I'm not changing my opinion, I'm focusing the argument. (And I'm being generous by assuming that it is much harder and more expensive than they say)

I'm not making an outrageous claim. I'm making a reasonable claim backed by evidence.
Show me the money!

Now if you have contrary evidence, I'd love to see it. But honestly, I doubt you have any, or would post it if you did: you're more interested in doom and gloom theories than you are in having an actual debate.
Bring something to the table & I'll analyze it. You started the "shale oil = economical" debate and so far all I've seen is some oil executives saying it will work (at $30/barrel).

I could go into why I think that's so - and I definitely do think there's an underlying reason - but that's not necessary. What is necessary for this conversation to continue is for you to actually try and show why shale oil isn't economically viable, at a realistic global oil price in the future.
Again, burden of proof is on you. But please do share your entertaining psychoanalysis with me. I have a thick skin & a good sense of humor. :)

Yes, it will. :)
:agree:

The earth has a gooey center of oil that will never run out. No worries. :)
I realize you were probably being sarcastic, but in reality you accidentally nailed it on the head.

The Earth will always be producing new oil. The tricky part is finding it once it's done simmering and ready to come out of the ground.

Well , today . Yes. Which means with increased consumption the oil supply get fewer.

However this is just some data that are not enough to make a doomsday scenario. The world may not even decline . Since there are some less industrialized regions more oil consumption will not lead into world decline until we reach a phase where there are just too few energy efficient energy sources remaing and the economy can't sustain it self. Unless we find -create plenty of energy efficient sources.

While we are transitioning their may be a decline in some parts of the world but the increase of consumption in other parts of the world may overgrow that decline.
I'm not sure I follow. If anything the developing world (China, India, South America, Afirca) are driving this problem. If we could keep those places very poor we'd have more time but we can't (and shouldn't) and they are now compeiting heavily with us for oil (& other natural resources).

Of course, on the flip side we're also seeing more & more educated people than ever before which is encouraging. Especially in nations where kids have grown up knowing hardship & suffering due to inefficiency and scarity first hand and thus may have more internal drive to find solutions.

Not even a slow decline is guaranteed. A decline of the growth , Yes i believe this will happen.
Not guaranteed but IMO, very likely.

Those should been of less importance to a person. And like i said it is not certain that overpopulation is a problem.
Better save than sorry. Unborn children don't complain.

It depends. There are societies that have so low birth rates that they won't be able to sustain them selfs if their isn't an increase. It is less of a reward and more of an encouraging so that we may solve a problem thing.
So encoruage immigration. Low birth rates in certain places shouldn't matter unless you're ethnocentric or are ALtheGREAT and want to preserve the purity of your women. :crazyeye:

I realize you were probably being sarcastic, but in reality you accidentally nailed it on the head.

The Earth will always be producing new oil. The tricky part is finding it once it's done simmering and ready to come out of the ground.
A huge new batch should be ready in about 300 million more years. :)

I realize you were probably being sarcastic, but in reality you accidentally nailed it on the head.

The Earth will always be producing new oil. The tricky part is finding it once it's done simmering and ready to come out of the ground.

I was being sarcastic, you are right on new oil, but natural refreshment is BY FAR outstripped by demand.

A huge new batch should be ready in about 300 million more years. :)

Indeed it will be.

I was being sarcastic, you are right on new oil, but natural refreshment is BY FAR outstripped by demand.
This is impossible to know. We can't see under the Earth well enough, and we don't know how fast new oil is being produced.

A huge new batch should be ready in about 300 million more years. :)
There should be a process to sidestep and bypass that 300 Million year wait.

I'm allowed to be a hypocrit. And since we're getting into personal territory here I'll say I'm against subsidizing all but the most incapable individuals and I tried to cancel my own disability income in '03 but they did not stop paying me so what can I do but the best I can. I don't plan on sending my kid(s) to public schools. I don't believe I deserve tax breaks or benefits either but I'm not going to turn them away.
So in other words...."Kids are bad and we shouldn't help people who have them, but I'm having one myself and I'll take all the help I can get." That about it?

Who told you that? (tell me here or via PM)
I dunno, heard it somewhere.

You know I'm right. An editorial is not a valid source.
It can be. But if you want other sources, I have them. Here's an interesting RAND Corp (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf) study on this issue. (Warning PDF file) When talking about Shell's In-Situ method of oil recovery, they say that:

"Scientists from the DOE have reviewed the Shell in-situ process and report that the technology is very promising" and that "Shell anticipates that the petroleum products produced by its in-situ method are competitive, given crude oil prices in the mid-$20s per barrel." But goes on to say that "The
company is still developing the process, however, and cost estimates are likely to increase as more information is obtained and more detailed designs become available." There's more, and you should read it for yourself: overall, they seem to think that several million barrels per day of oil production is doable, if albeit after 1-2 decades building up to that day.

Bring something to the table & I'll analyze it. You started the "shale oil = economical" debate and so far all I've seen is some oil executives saying it will work (at $30/barrel).
Then you aren't looking very hard. ;) Honestly though, every source I've seen that isn't a Peaknik guy says it's viable, just as varying prices, depending on the method used. It isn't pretty, but it works. If you have some reason to think that it won't, why can't you share it? Instead of dumping the whole thing on me. For someone who supposedly has it all figured out, you don't seem interested in posting any actual arguments of your own.

Again, burden of proof is on you. But please do share your entertaining psychoanalysis with me. I have a thick skin & a good sense of humor. :)
No, thank you - I'd probably get modded, and honestly, it's not really worth it. I don't think I could tell you anything you don't already know (Even if you don't think about it) and I doubt it'd make any difference. So no real point in "psychoanalyzing" you. ;)

There should be a process to sidestep and bypass that 300 Million year wait.
There "should be" lots of thing. ;)

I'm not sure I follow. If anything the developing world (China, India, South America, Afirca) are driving this problem. If we could keep those places very poor we'd have more time but we can't (and shouldn't) and they are now compeiting heavily with us for oil (& other natural resources).

Of course, on the flip side we're also seeing more & more educated people than ever before which is encouraging. Especially in nations where kids have grown up knowing hardship & suffering due to inefficiency and scarity first hand and thus may have more internal drive to find solutions.


Not guaranteed but IMO, very likely.


Better save than sorry. Unborn children don't complain.


So encoruage immigration. Low birth rates in certain places shouldn't matter unless you're ethnocentric or are ALtheGREAT and want to preserve the purity of your women. :crazyeye:


I'm not sure I follow. If anything the developing world (China, India, South America, Afirca) are driving this problem. If we could keep those places very poor we'd have more time but we can't (and shouldn't) and they are now compeiting heavily with us for oil (& other natural resources).

The thing is the world is not only us but a combination of the developing world and the developed world.



Of course, on the flip side we're also seeing more & more educated people than ever before which is encouraging. Especially in nations where kids have grown up knowing hardship & suffering due to inefficiency and scarity first hand and thus may have more internal drive to find solutions.



Indeed.

Not guaranteed but IMO, very likely.

I think you are underestimating what world decline actually means. If there is such decline it won't happen anytime soon. I think the world will have some time to try alternative solutions. I can't see how ten years after today the world economy wouldn't have grown . When we consider the developing world for example catching up to the rest.

As recent history , speaks only of eventually the world succeeding growth even after periods of relative decline i believe that it is the most possible scenario .

Better save than sorry. Unborn children don't complain.

Well i still don't find it healthy to consider overpopulation as important regarding your decision to have children.


So encoruage immigration. Low birth rates in certain places shouldn't matter unless you're ethnocentric or are ALtheGREAT and want to preserve the purity of your women.

The problem of immigration is integration to the society. If the immigrants are either too poor , too illiterate , culturally different or have issues with the particular nation then they are not as efficient as a non immigrant person.

Well i still don't find it healthy to consider overpopulation as important regarding your decision to have children.
I don't see why not. I don't see the good in depriving yourself altogether (especially if you are a conscientious, intelligent person) but IMO, having more than two is generally irresponsible. I'd rather have 3 or 4 kids but I don't plan to both for economic & ecological reasons.

The problem of immigration is integration to the society. If the immigrants are either too poor , too illiterate , culturally different or have issues with the particular nation then they are not as efficient as a non immigrant person.
The United States had massive amounts of immigration thruout it's periods of most rapid economic growth.

I don't see why not. I don't see the good in depriving yourself altogether (especially if you are a conscientious, intelligent person) but IMO, having more than two is generally irresponsible. I'd rather have 3 or 4 kids but I don't plan to both for economic & ecological reasons.

Economical reasons are understandable . But what you mean by ecological reasons ?





The United States had massive amounts of immigration thruout it's periods of most rapid economic growth.

That doesn't tell me anything about country X that would receive immigrants Z which could cause A,B problems. Immigration is something that provides benefits but excessive immigration will have several drawbacks. Which immigration is excessive differs for some countries. Anyway immigration can not always provide a solution to birth rate reduction.

I don't have anything against immigration, so long as there are women and single :mischief:. Now were kind of drifting off the topic, now are we? :p

Economical reasons are understandable . But what you mean by ecological reasons ?
Well, creating new life leaves a pretty big ecological footprint. Unless your kid manages to give back more than he takes.

That doesn't tell me anything about country X that would receive immigrants Z which could cause A,B problems. Immigration is something that provides benefits but excessive immigration will have several drawbacks. Which immigration is excessive differs for some countries. Anyway immigration can not always provide a solution to birth rate reduction.
Probably not always. But I think a slightly decreasing population is the least of the world's worries.

I don't have anything against immigration, so long as there are women and single :mischief:. Now were kind of drifting off the topic, now are we? :p
You could always host foreign exchange students. :D

Quietly, Petrobras has leased almost 80% of all drilling vessels with a capacity to operate in deep waters worldwide. That means pretty much everything. Why? They may have discovered some of the biggest oil fields in the world. Guess t's no wonder their market cap is bigger than GE and Microsoft right now. What will be interesting is how they drill through one of salt beds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a4Rwch0a_Smc&refer=energy

Quietly, Petrobras has leased almost 80% of all drilling vessels with a capacity to operate in deep waters worldwide. That means pretty much everything. Why? They may have discovered some of the biggest oil fields in the world. Guess t's no wonder their market cap is bigger than GE and Microsoft right now. What will be interesting is how they drill through one of salt beds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=a4Rwch0a_Smc&refer=energy

According from what i heard it is claimed to be the world's third largest oilfield.

Sensible People rejoice.

Narz , can you open a thread about this in the peak oil forum. I am interested in their reaction to this matter.


Well, creating new life leaves a pretty big ecological footprint. Unless your kid manages to give back more than he takes.

I don't consider that impersonal viewing of life as healthy. It shouldn't be such an important matter regarding one's decision.


Probably not always. But I think a slightly decreasing population is the least of the world's worries.
i disagree.

Narz , can you open a thread about this in the peak oil forum. I am interested in their reaction to this matter.
Ok.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic40485.html (check in the morning, more Americans than Europeans on there)

I don't consider that impersonal viewing of life as healthy. It shouldn't be such an important matter regarding one's decision.
I'm sorry I don't know what you mean.

Ok.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic40485.html (check in the morning, more Americans than Europeans on there)


I'm sorry I don't know what you mean.

Simply that supposed ecological footprint that your child leaves in the world should not be important , for your decision to have the child or to not have it.

Why not? I mean why do you think that thinking about the whole is unhealthy?

Why not? I mean why do you think that thinking about the whole is unhealthy?

There are two reasons.

Because like i said , it is not proven that having a child will affect the whole negatively. If you believe that by not having another child your serving the greater good then you are obviously not knowing what you are talking about. Only in some specific situations this applies.

And yes thinking about the whole other than your personal feelings on a personal matter(Whether you want another family member) is unhealthy because the ramifications of that decision to your personal life are bigger than the ramifications it will have to the whole world. And it is healthy to care more about your own life than the whole world.

Would you rather the goverment to tell you whether to have or not a child ?

I don't think that many would like such thing.

There are two reasons.

Because like i said , it is not proven that having a child will affect the whole negatively.
Nothing can be proven about the future. It's the future.

If you believe that by not having another child your serving the greater good then you are obviously not knowing what you are talking about.
:confused:

Only in some specific situations this applies.
:confused: x2

And yes thinking about the whole other than your personal feelings on a personal matter(Whether you want another family member) is unhealthy because the ramifications of that decision to your personal life are bigger than the ramifications it will have to the whole world. And it is healthy to care more about your own life than the whole world.
The two are interconnected. If people in 3rd world countries put rationality ahead of their desire to procreate they would be much better off. Even animals breed less when they are overpopulated, AFAIK.

Would you rather the goverment to tell you whether to have or not a child ?
No, I wouldn't. I do think the tax incentives regarding childbirth should be reversed though.

I don't think that many would like such thing.
Peoples feelings in the moment are less important than quality of life in the long term.

Nothing can be proven about the future. It's the future.


:confused:


:confused: x2


The two are interconnected. If people in 3rd world countries put rationality ahead of their desire to procreate they would be much better off. Even animals breed less when they are overpopulated, AFAIK.


No, I wouldn't. I do think the tax incentives regarding childbirth should be reversed though.


Peoples feelings in the moment are less important than quality of life in the long term.




The two are interconnected. If people in 3rd world countries put rationality ahead of their desire to procreate they would be much better off. Even animals breed less when they are overpopulated, AFAIK.

The burden of proof is on your shoulder.

And how would they be better ? Regarding economical issues ? Regarding social issues ? Happiness ? Or do they procreate because they don't use protection ....

Do you think that as a society grows in economy and luxuries that they make less children or do you believe that a society grows in economy because it makes less children.

This is similar to peak oil. You just can't look at the data : Many children per family - third world countries and reach a different conclusion : Overpopulation is a real problem everywhere.

Nothing can be proven about the future. It's the future.

Several things can be predicted about it . And not all predictions are equal.

If you are against them due to the personal issues a family may be facing that is completely different than it. And it is a philosophy i am not against.



But under that philosophy it is like most things a specific case scenario.




No, I wouldn't. I do think the tax incentives regarding childbirth should be reversed though.

Don't you think that those tax incentives are there for a reason ?


Peoples feelings in the moment are less important than quality of life in the long term.

Quality of life in the long term is a personal issue for most.

An unproven overpopulation problem is certainly not going to make hypothetical Aperson sacrifice his better quality of life with an additional child.

Unless that man is extremely ignorant. But this is only statistically true is specific areas of the world.If that is the case when that spesific society evolves then that would not be the case afterwards.

What measures are you proposing ?

OK - back to the topic, please. Its supposed to be oil.

Threadjacking deleted.

Oil prices have declined a bit to $125 a barrel due to from what i could understand , speculation that the consumption in Asia will be fewer than what was previously speculated. Speculation , some claim that is the devil that is driving the prices up , what does everyone else think ?

Oil prices have declined a bit to $125 a barrel due to from what i could understand , speculation that the consumption in Asia will be fewer than what was previously speculated. Speculation , some claim that is the devil that is driving the prices up , what does everyone else think ?

Up again nearly 1% so far today. Nothing moves in a straight line. After a nearly parabolic move upwards, pullbacks are inevitable. Long-term trend still intact. Prices continuously fluctuate. The move continues. Indefinitely.

That's what I think.

Oil prices have declined a bit to $125 a barrel due to from what i could understand , speculation that the consumption in Asia will be fewer than what was previously speculated. Speculation , some claim that is the devil that is driving the prices up , what does everyone else think ?
I think we're in a secular bull for oil. I doubt we'll see much developing economy drop off in consumption since most of those countries are subsidizing the price and with food prices rocketing it would be political suicide to lift some of the subsidies. Indonesia had to recently or it would've been 20% of their budget. I'm not sure this is possible in China where 1/3 of per capita income is spent on food and trying to put on their best face with the Olympics coming. Add in Indian elections and you've got demand in two huge markets.

Hopefully, the higher prices will force Americans into their stubborn ways when they don't like how something's impacting them. Let's hope the shifts in consumption become permanent.

Let's hope that politicians don't keep talking about subsidizing the oil (by reducing oil-based taxes)

Let's hope that politicians don't keep talking about subsidizing the oil (by reducing oil-based taxes)
Well Obama's going to win easily and he's opposed to the repealing of the gas tax (as is pretty much anyone with any economic, let alone environmental, common sense).

Let's hope that politicians don't keep talking about subsidizing the oil (by reducing oil-based taxes)

Reducing taxes is NOT a subsidy! Its, well, just reducing taxes. :confused:

Depends what those taxes are used for. My gasoline taxes are earmarked for roads (which makes quite a bit of sense, I think). If they drop the gasoline taxes, then the roads will be paid for out of some other system. Removing the gasoline tax would then subsidize gasoline consumption.

Depends what those taxes are used for. My gasoline taxes are earmarked for roads (which makes quite a bit of sense, I think). If they drop the gasoline taxes, then the roads will be paid for out of some other system. Removing the gasoline tax would then subsidize gasoline consumption.

No it wouldn't. In your hypothetical, reducing taxes on gasoline would have the effect of removing subsidies on road building.

I consider the majority of roads to be public goods and thus more efficiently created using pooled funds.

I consider the majority of roads to be public goods and thus more efficiently created using pooled funds.

That may be so (or not, depends on who you talk to) but ainwood is still right. Removing a tax and some public spending (oil tax, roads) does not mean a subsidy is created, obviously the opposite is true.
Also, I find that politicians usually tax something claiming to spend the money on a specific purpose, then they go ahead and spend it on whatever they want.
E.g. And expensive under-water tunnel was built near my home in order to replace the ferry, so that car transportation between Stavanger and Bergen would be easier. They put up a toll to travel through the tunnel, in order to pay for its construction, but as soon as it was paid for they were going to remove the toll. Sounds fair, people thought. But they never removed the toll, it is still around many years after the tunnel has been paid for. Also, I ask people why do we have income taxes? People say: "You know, for hospitals, schools, roads, etc...), then I say: Why do we have the oil tax, people reply "That money is used on road building", and the yearly road fee? Roadbuilding.
What I´m getting across here is that politicians use road building as an excuse for lots of revenue, and it is mostly pure lies. Because the fact is that the road building and maintaining costs for a year is covered by each of those four different sources of revenue individually! If they only had the oil tax, the roads would be covered many times over, same with the toll booths. They are ripping off the dumb voters and getting away with it.

What I´m getting across here is that politicians use road building as an excuse for lots of revenue, and it is mostly pure lies.
Like all the rest of politics. The government wastes more money every week than everyone on Civfanatics put together will earn in our lifetimes.

Fact is though, it's simply not just to give certain companies (oil companies) tax-breaks and not spread it across the board. Let's get rid of subsidies for meat & dairy industries & other heavy polluters. Unless we remove harmful subsidies we cannot reduce taxes without messing up the dollar even worse.

I definitively agree. But in Norway the oil tax is much higher than a normal sales tax or even much higher than the vice tax on alchohol, the oil tax is more than 80%, then the oil companies have expenses to cover of course, so the resulting price is very high.

Let's get rid of subsidies for meat & dairy industries & other heavy polluters.

As I'm feeling somewat anarchist today, a question: would you say that these industries only came about in the first place (replacing destroyed former businesses that supplied similar products) thanks to state support?

Yes, if you go back to medieval lordships, but no otherwise.

As I'm feeling somewat anarchist today, a question: would you say that these industries only came about in the first place (replacing destroyed former businesses that supplied similar products) thanks to state support?
Yes, I do. Obviously people (almost all cultures to some extent) have been consuming meat & dairy from time immemorial but not in factory farms the way we do it today. But, without state support (or, as ecofarm would say "Communism :runaway:") I don't think these industries could have become anything near what they are today. They also seem pretty well shielded from animal cruelty laws. If my neighbor stated anything even close to a factory farm is his living room you can bet he'd be busted for cruelty, giving violations for unsanitary conditions, etc. but if it's out in some rural community no one cares.

CivGeneral will love this video.

CNBC : Senior Energy Adviser predicts $500/barrel oil within 3-5 years & explains the problem of Peak Oil (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=774744570&play=1)

Another Dr. Hirsch video from a month ago (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWGsnW_NnxE)

You bumped this thread for that?! What makes you think that I would "love" $500/barrel oil? If anything, it would make me more angry.

You bumped this thread for that?! What makes you think that I would "love" $500/barrel oil? If anything, it would make me more angry.
I'm sorry then. I don't like seeing you upset. :(

Hey, the longer oil prices stay high, the more likely we'll get alternatives sooner.

Peak Oil Article from 1998 (when oil was $12 a barrel) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/e/a/1998/08/31/NEWS8788.dtl)

FYI........ (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=MostReadHome)

Hey, the longer oil prices stay high, the more likely we'll get alternatives sooner.

Give us a prediction. How long will oil be above $100/barrel before alternatives kick in which can be purchased for less?

You guys can downplay the importance or whatever, but this is getting real serious. I am planning a trip to Germany with my students and as it is, currently the fuel surcharge/tax is around US$385. If we don't book before 1st July, they will increase this by another US$170. Insane...

I advise you people to better fly before it is too late/costly. Luckily I traveled a lot during the Golden Age for travelers.

FYI........ (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=MostReadHome)
Doesn't work that way or else the futures price would be higher than the cash market and it's not. In fact, it's one of the reasons why refineries can't hedge in here. Further, the 2012 futures on oil is about flat to today's price. Specs have much to do with the volatility but little to do with price.

Commodity futures prices converge to cash prices, and cash prices are set by the level of demand to consume physical goods. In commodities there is an outside measure of intrinsic value (the cash market) that is more intangible in equity or real estate. As actual commodity prices go higher or lower, they reflect consumption requirements for actual products. It's why rice is up even more than oil.

Give us a prediction. How long will oil be above $100/barrel before alternatives kick in which can be purchased for less?

Yeah, give us a prediction! Anyone! Maybe we should start an oil price prediction thread/poll ...

Commodity futures prices converge to cash prices, and cash prices are set by the level of demand to consume physical goods. In commodities there is an outside measure of intrinsic value (the cash market) that is more intangible in equity or real estate.

:confused: How is real estate any less tangible than oil? Mind you, I tend to hang out in the philosophy and religion threads, so I know my intangibles! When you say that real estate is even slightly intangible, my brain boggles.

Couldn't someone (an oil company say) who predicts that prices will rise faster than their other investments are compounding, just put (or simply leave) oil in a well and store it for that rainy day? Not that it's a bad thing. But if it's happening, it's the ultimate "futures market" for oil. And it would tend to make today's oil prices higher than they'd otherwise be.

On the other hand, if oil prices are a speculative bubble, then those who own a lot of it and know a lot about the business - like Saudi Arabia for instance - would be increasing production to the max right now, to cash in while the gettin's good. And whaddaya know, that's exactly what they're doing.

FYI........ (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gas-could-fall-2-if/story.aspx?guid={2673C102-68E0-41D9-9C9A-10EE2E723948}&dist=MostReadHome)
I don't think the rise is due to speculation. I think the rise is do to the fact that there has been no noticeable increase is supply in almost four years.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/crude_oil_energy_sector_trends_15_12_07_image002.j pg

Conspiracy theorists claim that "the elites" have untapped stockpiles hidden away & neo-cons imagine that if it weren't for goddamn liberals blocking offshore drilling we'd have $.99 cent gasoline like back in the summer of '01. But I don't buy it.

I don't think the rise is due to speculation. I think the rise is do to the fact that there has been no noticeable increase is supply in almost four years.
Keep clutching to the nonsense of peak oil. The rise is due to the speculation, greedy Oil Megacorps, OPEC refusing to pump more, and untapped sources.


Conspiracy theorists claim that "the elites" have untapped stockpiles hidden away & neo-cons imagine that if it weren't for goddamn liberals blocking offshore drilling we'd have $.99 cent gasoline like back in the summer of '01. But I don't buy it.
Full stop. Get your facts straight. The last time gas was $.99 was around the 80s.

Plus, it is true that the Democrats have blocked off oil drilling off shore and in nature preserves. (Though there are exceptions in which Jeb Bush blocked off shore drilling off the coast of Florida.)

Full stop. Get your facts straight. The last time gas was $.99 was around the 80s.
Wrong. Gas was 99cents a gallon in New Jersey in 2001. How do I know? Because I filled up my friend's gas tank for that much. Man, that was a blast. Living in a large one-bedroom in Queens, NY with a big yard for $850. Having huge bonfires in the backyards at night once in awhile and the cool ass neighbors never ratted (for a brief period anyway, I did have a couple of jerkish neighbors but there was a brief spell my one neighbor was awesome as hell, she was a pilot, and had nice thighs :yumyum:, unfortunately she lost her job after 9/11 and moved back to... somewhere in the South where she had fam & living was cheaper :(). Almost every weekend during the summer we'd drive into New Jersey and goto 6-flags and/or the Jersey shore. I'm sure summer of 2001 may well be remembered as the pinnacle of "the easy life" by many people. Personally & globally alot of subtle & not-so-subtle cracks have appeared in the fabric of our civilization/culture/"unshakable" beliefs. It's going to be an interesting ride. :)

:confused: How is real estate any less tangible than oil? Mind you, I tend to hang out in the philosophy and religion threads, so I know my intangibles! When you say that real estate is even slightly intangible, my brain boggles.Though real estate is tangible it does not have an active futures market for hedgers and speculators (not much different than iron ore). If you're buying land there's really no way a developer, for instance, can hedge off their risk the way a refiner hedges a 3-2-1 crack spreads. You're either long or you're not and no active market for shorting that market.

Couldn't someone (an oil company say) who predicts that prices will rise faster than their other investments are compounding, just put (or simply leave) oil in a well and store it for that rainy day? Not that it's a bad thing. But if it's happening, it's the ultimate "futures market" for oil. And it would tend to make today's oil prices higher than they'd otherwise be.
I don't think oil companies anticipated the rise in WTI. They were looking at the overall oil market and there's plenty of heavy oil to be had but few who can risk buying it.


On the other hand, if oil prices are a speculative bubble, then those who own a lot of it and know a lot about the business - like Saudi Arabia for instance - would be increasing production to the max right now, to cash in while the gettin's good. And whaddaya know, that's exactly what they're doing.And at the same time continuing to lower the price of their heavy oil in the process where their heavy crude is trading at $40/barrel discount to the light version everyone wants. It's why Libya says they're going to reduce their exports. They think there's too much supply in the market...of the heavy stuff simple refineries can't use.

Interesting OP (original post. I didn't read the whole thread) about the reality of allowing off-shore drilling & ANWR drilling. (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic41781.html) (keep in mind MonteQuest takes the peakoil & overshoot argument somewhat religiously but he often does have insightful posts)

Why Technology Will Solve Peak Oil in the End (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic41941) (another thread from the peakoil boards. I actually imediately liked the thread starter and thought some of the responses to him were poorly reasoned. Unfortunately he quit the forum after a somewhat rude post on page 6 or 7 but the thread went on for 30+ pages)

Posted that second thread to remind people that I do like to look at both sides of all the issues I believe are very serious. The more idealogical the argument the more I tend to dismiss it.

strontium & MonteQuest are two extremes and it is unlikely either of them have it entirely right.

Here are some videos I thought were worth watching. Most of them from the mainstream news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D05I2v4RbpE

Krugman with Olbermann on "The Energy Question of 2008" (critical of McCain and Obama both) from MSNBC's Countdown. (7 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh6x9gA2u-A

Jeff Rubin of CIBC predicts $7 gasoline on CNBC with Erin Burnett, which he says would take 10 million cars off the road. Kind of a scary conclusion, finally hitting the mainstream. Personally I don't see how the world economy can keep chugging along at this rate. Light rail & new technology will not appear in time, IMO (but that subject is still pretty much taboo in mainstream media because it's too scary to contemplate). Good video. (4 mins)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TDs57H3I6Oo

Great talk by Bill Moyers straight shooting about oil & Iraq. (6 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqg3P3wOV60

James Howard Kunstler on CBC talking about the end of the cheap oil age (touching the issues of food, air travel, suburbs, etc.). Very well done, his book is good too. (8 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM1x4RljmnE

"Are humans smarter than yeast?" this one is entitled. A bit overdrawn out and simplistic, it still does a decent job pointing out the disconnect between businessmen & economists on one hand and reality on the other. (8 min)

Oh, and while I'm here, thought I'd share this (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/28/business/wbjoe28.php?page=1) also. The article is entitled "No evidence of manipulation in oil trading". So much for McCain's conspiracy theory.

I have watched all the videos & recommend them all.

While, I'm here, here's some great "Doomer Pron" from the Vancouver Sun : http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2eeece50-285f-4c4b-bb37-2d053d04d4e8

Demand destruction of this kind will create peak demand rather than peak oil. I wonder how many of these pundits are willing to "hit the bid" and put their money where their mouth is because really until you're willing to do that the rest is simply conjecture and doesn't hold a lot of weight with me.

Demand destruction only works for non-necessaities. Oil is as necessary for our civilization as food & water are for animals. Maybe at some point decades from now we'll be able to break free. People can response proactively with gardens, bicycling, working closer to home, efficiency, etc. but nearly every aspect of our lives are somewhat dependent on oil. Not to mention all the jobs generated by it & generated by the inefficiency and waste that requires maintainance & cleanup (for example incandescent lights that burn out within 6 months create 12x as much work for the guy who replaces them all as LED lights that burn out every 6 years). Of course they are tons of new jobs available for "green" entreprenuers and their employees but there will also me many, many industries that go under also (I'd guess at least 50% of airline companies).

I think a lot of people have already made a lot of money predicting the recent oil upshoot (and investing accordingly). I would too but I don't have the capital to do so. Also, there are moral issues, I'd rather invest in renewables.

Wrong.
Sorry, not wrong. Gas was NEVER below 99 cents per gallon in the 90s.
Troll bait. Debate the topic not the person.

Edit: Apperently people cant take a joke :rolleyes:.


Personally & globally alot of subtle & not-so-subtle cracks have appeared in the fabric of our civilization/culture/"unshakable" beliefs. It's going to be an interesting ride. :)
Quite a facinating insite to your Anarcho-Primitivism and Neo-Luddism. Sorry to burst your bubble but the cracks in our civilization and culture aint gonna happen.

Sorry, not wrong. Gas was NEVER below 99 cents per gallon in the 90s.
You might be right. I never claimed it was. Gas was 99.9 cents a gallon in New Jersey in 2001 though. :)

Quite a facinating insite to your Anarcho-Primitivism and Neo-Luddism. Sorry to burst your bubble but the cracks in our civilization and culture aint gonna happen.
You're entitled to your opinion. :)

Re : mods, thanks but CivGeneral is the least of my worries. We're buddies, right CG? :)

Narz when I speak of demand destruction it's not permanent demand destruction. As you've pointed out the airline industry is most definitely feeling the impact of demand being destroyed but as well as governments in emerging markets that subsidize oil consumption, the drivers that are cutting back on discretionary travel and small power generation units in emerging markets.

Efficiency and substitution are the only available mechanisms to restrain demand for oil. On the efficiency front, price and policy are the only two alternatives that can force change among consumers. Problem is that's not happening in China which continues to drive huge subsidized demand and in the aggregate the Mideast consuming even more than China(Saudis recently lowered gas prices 30% to $0.60/gallon). Question is whether they're breaking their own backs?

On the efficiency front, price and policy are the only two alternatives that can force change among consumers.
Education helps too though I agree not even close to as much as price & policy.

This is why I think high prices are a good thing & higher prices are even better. Short term pain for (hopefully) long term positive change. I just don't have the pure faith that we definitely will solve this problem in time. Which is not necessarily a bad thing either from a broad enough perspective.

We use roughly 1/2 of oil consumption for motor vehicle fuels of all types. The other 1/2 includes home heating oil, boiler fuel for other buildings and powerplants, lubricants, industrial feed stock, and other purposes. Anyone have a breakdown of what percentage of oil use goes to each category?

Don't have one handy. Try the Energy Information Administration.

We use roughly 1/2 of oil consumption for motor vehicle fuels of all types. The other 1/2 includes home heating oil, boiler fuel for other buildings and powerplants, lubricants, industrial feed stock, and other purposes. Anyone have a breakdown of what percentage of oil use goes to each category?

I had one in my chem book of last year, I recall that Plastics only made up for 4% or so. That's not so much, I was very suprised to see that number.

IEA numbers...
1971--Transportation 16 million bpd and non transportation 33 million bpd
2002--Transportation 37 million bpd and non transportation 40 million bpd
2030 estimate-- transportation 65 million bpd and non transportation 56 million bpd.

In the 2002 estimate med/heavy trucks make up 9 million bpd, other 9 million bpd and light duty (light duty trucks, pick ups and cars) were 18 million bdp.

The estimate for 2030 is 17 million bdp trucks, 18 million bdp other and 32 million bdp light duty. Research I've read suggests their estimate for light duty is way off and could be close to 16 million bpd.

IEA estimates that the global stock of light-duty vehicles will increase from 707 million in 2002 to 1,289 million in 2030, and that annual miles driven per vehicle will grow from more than 8,800 to nearly 9,600. Their estimate only calls for 25.1 mpg from 23.1 in 2010. This number could be off by as much as 25 mpg.

Considering that price spikes aren't usually felt till much later, how long do you think our current shipping industry (IE 18 wheelers) can survive until major players start falling out of the market?

Sorry, not wrong. Gas was NEVER below 99 cents per gallon in the 90s.
Troll bait. Debate the topic not the person.

Edit: Apperently people cant take a joke :rolleyes:.




And you're wrong. Get your facts straight.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990106/ai_n10126592


WASHINGTON (Bloomberg) -- The average retail price of regular unleaded gasoline fell to 93.5 cents a gallon last week, the lowest price this decade, the U.S. Energy Department said.

It was also the 12th consecutive week of falling gasoline prices, brought on by lower world demand for crude oil. Gasoline was down more than 16 cents, or 15 percent, from $1.10 a gallon of regular unleaded a year earlier, the department's Energy Information Administration said.


With the decline of 0.2 cents a gallon, last week's price was the lowest since the department began collecting weekly data in August 1990. And EIA Administrator Jay Hakes said people shouldn't rush to keep their gas tanks full because low prices will be around for a while. "In the old days, people would be topping off their tanks at every chance," Hakes said. "Now, there's nothing we can see that would change the (low price) situation." EIA gathers weekly price data from 800 service stations.

Copyright 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.


Gas prices at 93.5 cents in '99.

And you're wrong. Get your facts straight.
Sorry, I'm not wrong here buddy. Get YOUR facts straight.

Whether you like to hear it or not, Gas was not below $.99 a gallon in the 90s. My folks recall seeing gas that low in the 1970s.

Do you live in the State of Connecticut or any other place that has higher than normal gas prices? No. Does that piece of crap article you managed to dig up take into account individual states? NO, only the f'ing average. So think again before you claim that I am wrong and spew the "get your fact straight" crap at me like some unevolved monkey.

Sorry, I'm not wrong here buddy. Get YOUR facts straight.

Whether you like to hear it or not, Gas was not below $.99 a gallon in the 90s. My folks recall seeing gas that low in the 1970s.

Do you live in the State of Connecticut or any other place that has higher than normal gas prices? No. Does that piece of crap article you managed to dig up take into account individual states? NO, only the f'ing average. So think again before you claim that I am wrong and spew the "get your fact straight" crap at me like some unevolved monkey.

lol

First you say that there was never any gas below 99c in the 90s, and then you admit that your experience of higher prices is only a localized phenomenom irrelevant to what we are discussing. Are we discussing gas prices as a whole or only in your overpriced town? If the only things that are facts are those which have happened in your experience, what do we have left to discuss?

In fact, becasue the 93.5 was only a national average, there could well be stations selling gas for only 80 cents during this time period.

Know why gas prices were high versus inflation in the 70s, and why you claim to find prices as such from back then? Because of the oil crisis back then. You know, cars backed up miles? Of course, your pretend knowledgeability doesn't take account of this.

Oh, and "get your facts straight" is a direct quote from you from earlier in this thread.

lol
Are you just arguing or just plain old trolling?


First you say that there was never any gas below 99c in the 90s,
There were.


and then you admit that your experience of higher prices is only a localized phenomenom irrelevant to what we are discussing.
I did not admit anything here buddy.


Are we discussing gas prices as a whole or only in your overpriced town?
Full stop, I made no mention about my town. Town and state are two separate things. But I guess your trollish behavior cant comprehend that :rolleyes:


If the only things that are facts are those which have happened in your experience, what do we have left to discuss?
Full stop, I never made any reference to my experience.


In fact, becasue the 93.5 was only a national average, there could well be stations selling gas for only 80 cents during this time period.
So you admit that it's just an average of the national gas average?


Know why gas prices were high versus inflation in the 70s, and why you claim to find prices as such from back then? Because of the oil crisis back then. You know, cars backed up miles? Of course, your pretend knowledgeability doesn't take account of this.
Full stop, I never pretend to ignore the price inflation in the 1970s. I am fully aware about the gas crisis back then. I never pretended to take account of that :rolleyes:.


Oh, and "get your facts straight" is a direct quote from you from earlier in this thread.
And yet you act like a troll and become antagonistic towards me? :rolleyes

Are you just arguing or just plain old trolling?

Correcting a mistake that was made forcefully and used to flame others, despite it being a mistake.


There were.


Sorry, not wrong. Gas was NEVER below 99 cents per gallon in the 90s.

Uh...


I did not admit anything here buddy.


Why would you turn the argument into one about individual states then?



Full stop, I made no mention about my town. Town and state are two separate things. But I guess your trollish behavior cant comprehend that :rolleyes:

You don't have towns in Connecticut? What should I call your population centers then? Cities? Villages? Hamlets?


Full stop, I never made any reference to my experience.


You live in Connecticut. You cited Connecticut prices.


So you admit that it's just an average of the national gas average?


I'm not going to go into what "an average of an average" is, but the average proves that not only were there prices below 99 cents, the overwhelming majority of gas prices was under 1 dollar at that point in time in '99.

Full stop, I never pretend to ignore the price inflation in the 1970s. I am fully aware about the gas crisis back then. I never pretended to take account of that :rolleyes:.

Why would you cite prices from then when you know they would be distorted?

Correcting a mistake that was made forcefully and used to flame others, despite it being a mistake.
I'm sorry to say. But your attempt on "correcting a mistake" was quite rude and antagonistic.


You don't have towns in Connecticut? What should I call your population centers then? Cities? Villages? Hamlets?
I said and mentioned states. No where in my posts did I listed any cities or town



You live in Connecticut. You cited Connecticut prices.
Where in my posts did I cited CT's prices? No where.



I'm not going to go into what "an average of an average" is, but the average proves that not only were there prices below 99 cents, the overwhelming majority of gas prices was under 1 dollar at that point in time in '99.
Sorry, it proves nothing. I still stand by that Gas has never fell below 99 cents in the 90s. Sorry to say, I am right on this.

I have submitted textual, factual proof that your "stand" is incorrect. You have refused to accept this despite the obvious evidence supporting it. There is no need for further discussion on the topic to the neutral observer. I'm stepping out of this thread to avoid a flame war.

I have submitted textual, factual proof that your "stand" is incorrect. You have refused to accept this despite the obvious evidence supporting it.
Well sorry to burst your bubble, but my stand is correct FYI. :rolleyes:. And your evidence is hardly evidence at all.


I'm stepping out of this thread to avoid a flame war.
The less trolls and rude people, the better.

I'm stepping out of this thread to avoid a flame war.

Good idea. Ditto for CivGeneral

James Howard Kunstler on issues with new oil finds (like the Brazilian one) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDvZdCaGCJ8&feature=related)

BTW, CG is that a real woman's face in your new av? It looks like an illustration but I can't tell.

BTW, CG is that a real woman's face in your new av? It looks like an illustration but I can't tell.

OT from this OT thread: Not sure whether that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alyx_Vance) is an illustration or a real woman's face? Gabe Newell would be happy, I guess! We've crossed the uncanny valley - for small thumbnails! :lol:

James Howard Kunstler on issues with new oil finds (like the Brazilian one) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDvZdCaGCJ8&feature=related)

BTW, CG is that a real woman's face in your new av? It looks like an illustration but I can't tell.
She's to old for you :p

When did Half life one come out ? 2001 ? That would make her Seven years old.

She's to old for you :p
You sure about that? She's got the hips of a lanky teenage boy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/HalfLife2_AlyxVance.jpg/211px-HalfLife2_AlyxVance.jpg

Oh yeah, on topic, the world as we know it is coming to an end.

You sure about that? She's got the hips of a lanky teenage boy.
:rolleyes:


Oh yeah, on topic, the world as we know it is coming to an end.
Would you quit running around like some hobo with a sign saying "The end is near!". The last thing we need is running around like chicken little.

Considering that price spikes aren't usually felt till much later, how long do you think our current shipping industry (IE 18 wheelers) can survive until major players start falling out of the market?

Article from my local newspaper on that subject:
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1065816.html

Also worthy of consideration is that more money for fuel means less for maintainance & repairs of their vehicles. Somethings got to give somewhere.

A year from now you'll be a lot less likely to see "free shipping" promotions.

Sorry, it proves nothing. I still stand by that Gas has never fell below 99 cents in the 90s. Sorry to say, I am right on this.

I paid 68 cents at the pump per gallon of gasoline in Spring 1998 in Marietta, GA. I remember that because that is the lowest price I have paid for gas.

Kraz was completely right. If the average gas price was 93 cents or something, than at least 50% of gas pumps had gas less than that price. That is a simple statistical fact.

Good news! Looks like everything's going to be ok now! :)

Oil prices plummet over $6 amid economic fears (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080715/oil_prices.html)

Or maybe not.

Brazilian oil workers begin strike (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7504639.stm)

Workers at Brazil's state-run oil company Petrobras have begun a five-day strike, raising fears of further pressure on world oil prices.

The firm is playing down the potential impact of the dispute, which is over offshore working conditions.

The management say there is a contingency plan to maintain output.

But a union spokesman said while management would do everything they could to maintain production workers would do their best to disrupt it.

Sounds like fun. http://k53.pbase.com/v3/42/267742/1/45921590.popcorn.gif

Seriously though, we gotta get CivGeneral down there to talk some sense into those jerks!

It's good timing from the union's point of view.

Looks like Mexico has peaked and is going into serious decline. Kind of old news but the mainstream media is a bit slow to pay attention to the real news.

http://www.startribune.com/business/26118739.html?location_refer=Business:highlightMod ules:7

Since 2005, daily production has dropped more than 300,000 barrels per day, or roughly 10 percent -- and this at a time of historically high global prices. Reserves have been falling since the mid-1980s. This is relevant to U.S. consumers, because Mexico is the second-largest exporter of oil to the United States, behind Canada.

Mexico, which is not a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was the world's sixth-largest oil producer in 2006. But many analysts believe that Mexican production has peaked and will decline in coming years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Mexico's production is hampered because the state owned oil company is not investing. I've heard that that is at least partially caused by the Mexican people being unwilling to loose current income for the investment needed for investment for the future. It's short sighted in any case. And will serve neither Mexican nor world interests.

Maybe they're right, maybe it's not worth the investment. You realize how amazingly expensive it is to extract & refine oil. At a certain point, the costs outweigh the benefits. There is plenty of oil left in the ground, just that the easy to extract & refine oil is either at or very close to reaching it's maximum extraction rate worldwide. This is not saying there won't be new discovers (which will require huge investments & at least a few years to become fully operational) or that we will ever "run out" of oil, just that for practical purposes there won't be enough to go around, the results of which will be... to put it neutrally, very impactful.

I don't really think that's too applicable to Mexico currently. Since the Mexican fields were developed, there has been good improvements in advanced oil recovery methods. So keeping current fields in production requires new equipment. And oil which could not be profitably pumped with 1970s machinery often can now. But that requires new investment.

Secondly, the Gulf of Mexico region that is a very productive oil region can certainly benefit from new investment, and nothing at all is gained by falling behind there.

Short answer, this is a fairly good case study in the failure of national ownership of the means of production.

How is the Gulf of Mexico divided up actually? I'd never thought about it before. Is there some sort of map showing the ownership of the world's oceans? Obviously probably each nation owns the mile or so outside their own shores but what about further out?

I believe that it is generally accepted that a country controls 200 miles off it's coast. At border areas, there would have to be some agreement between the nations as to where to draw the border, just as there is on land.

5 years after a giant blackout, are we better off? : Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/ap_on_bi_ge/blackout5_years_later;_ylt=Aoi.KPpRarw8BiKtYqYp1mm s0NUE)

This is an interesting article, especially since so many assume that they can rely on electric as a viable backup to oil.

"Five years after the worst blackout in North American history, the country's largest power providers say the problems that turned out the lights on 50 million people have largely been resolved, but they fear that larger, systemic issues could soon lead to even bigger and more damaging outages."

It is the new gold.

Since the last post oil soared to almost $150, then dropped to almost $90 and yesterday made it's biggest one day gain in history back up to over $125/barrel. Bumpy plateau indeed!

In other news, gas is still below $4! :D

Since the last post oil soared to almost $150, then dropped to almost $90 and yesterday made it's biggest one day gain in history back up to over $125/barrel. Bumpy plateau indeed!

Rats :( I was going to start investing in energy-related stocks when oil got into the $80s. I always pick the wrong trigger levels :suicide:

I said it previously, I think that the current fair price for oil is about $100 USD. I would be careful purchasing integrated oil at that level, but I wouldn't avoid it.

I said it previously, I think that the current fair price for oil is about $100 USD.
What makes you choose $100 besides that's it a nice round number that's easy to pick?

Oil is now down below $80/barrel. Almost half of what it has so far maxed out at.

IMO, this is mostly due to the recession & hopefully people (both in government & the public sector) will not be foolish & abandon alternative energy investments because oil is still a non-renewable resource.

This recession has bought us some extra time & hopefully we will make the most of it!

In other news, gas is still below $4! :D
In some parts of the country it's below $2 even! Per barrel is under $70.

However, I wouldn't count on it staying that way long.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=arn1g3qUqKAI&refer=energy

This is a pivitol time, if we rest on our laurels, we're screwed.

In some parts of the country it's below $2 even! Per barrel is under $70.

However, I wouldn't count on it staying that way long.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=arn1g3qUqKAI&refer=energy

This is a pivitol time, if we rest on our laurels, we're screwed.

define long. through december, yes. through till july, maybe. through to 2020, dont count on it.

It depends on the rate of decline vs. new discoveries vs. demand. I've given up trying to make short-term predictions on it.

In some parts of the country it's below $2 even! Per barrel is under $70.

However, I wouldn't count on it staying that way long.
However, I will count on it staying that way. :trouble:

Here's an interesting stat for ya...
Every $.01 reduction in gasoline saves Americans $3.4 million a day.

On 7/16/08 the national averaged peaked at $4.11 a gallon and on 10/24/08 it had fallen to $2.78 a gallon. That’s a $447 million daily savings. (Source:WSJ, AAA Motor Club and Fortune.)

It should be interesting to see whether countries that require much higher prices to cover their budgets will abide by lower quotas. History shows 70% compliance and my guess is this time could be lower than that.

Here's an interesting stat for ya...
Every $.01 reduction in gasoline saves Americans $3.4 million a day.

On 7/16/08 the national averaged peaked at $4.11 a gallon and on 10/24/08 it had fallen to $2.78 a gallon. That’s a $447 million daily savings. (Source:WSJ, AAA Motor Club and Fortune.)

It should be interesting to see whether countries that require much higher prices to cover their budgets will abide by lower quotas. History shows 70% compliance and my guess is this time could be lower than that.

posted on another board

@12, OPEC is the worst cartel ever and they can't fight prevailing economic conditions. They restrict supply to push up prices up but then that creates even more economic peril and then theres less demand so they cut their supplies even more thus pushing the economy down further. The inherent problem with the cartel is that they love to cheat and sell more oil at a higher price than their quota allows. It's really a paper tiger when it comes down to it.

Haven't several of the OPEC nations been resisting Saudi plans to cut production?

Human rights lawyers have accused Peru's government of a cover-up, after clashes between police and indigenous protesters killed at least 50 people.

The lawyers say hundreds more may be missing, amid rumours that the police have hidden bodies.

For two months Amazonians have rallied against laws which they say will open their lands to oil and gas drilling.

Meanwhile, Nicaragua has granted political asylum to indigenous leader Alberto Pizango.

He sought refuge in the country's embassy in Lima after an arrest warrant was issued on charges of sedition, conspiracy and rebellion.

After visiting the area, near the town of Bagua Grande, 1,400km (870 miles) north of the capital Lima, rights lawyers said hundreds of people could not be accounted for.

"I say to the authorities they should take care because sooner or later the facts of what happened will come to light," Ernesto de la Jara from the Institute for Legal Defence said.

"Dead bodies may be covered up for now but, little by little, the truth will come out and they will have to respond."

The BBC's Dan Collyns, in the town of Bagua Chica, says indigenous groups are insisting that the government be tried for crimes against humanity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8092453.stm

The Peruvian Government, on the other hand, blames those bow and arrow and spear wielding 'savages'.

But the government denies any wrongdoing and has launched a publicity campaign portraying the Amazonians as brutal savages.

That looks like it's under rainforest, no?


I'm having trouble finding a good popularisation, but two weeks ago in Science there was a detailed survey of the rock type (and their likelihood of containing oil) and it turns out that there's three more years of oil in the Artic Circle (below sea level). This was using modern extraction techniques. If we assumed that technology would triple it, there's nine more years up there, at current consumption levels.

I'm having trouble finding a good popularisation, but two weeks ago in Science there was a detailed survey of the rock type (and their likelihood of containing oil) and it turns out that there's three more years of oil in the Artic Circle (below sea level). This was using modern extraction techniques. If we assumed that technology would triple it, there's nine more years up there, at current consumption levels.

Is that nine more years than previously thought, or just nine more years (i.e. until 2018)?

Firstly, it's actually three years using modern estimates. They look at the rock, and say "an oil company would expect to get X amount of oil from that rock". And it's three years more, because no one has officially guessed how much oil was in the Arctic Circle before (and published the data).

It's back up to $71

It's back up to $71
The risk trades have been rallying since stocks bottomed. Maybe this will get rig counts back up since they dropped from 2085 to 1096(2004 levels) in three months that started in October.

Supplies aren't there.

Hopefully it will go higher to ensure that the oil isn't wasted and investments in alternative energy continue. People are getting back to wasting oil and higher prices need to stop that trend

The risk trades have been rallying since stocks bottomed. Maybe this will get rig counts back up since they dropped from 2085 to 1096(2004 levels) in three months that started in October.

Supplies aren't there.


I have absolutely no idea what you just said :blush:

I have absolutely no idea what you just said :blush:

Supply was taken off the market by taking oil rigs out of use.

Why were they out of use?

Off shore rigs cost more than land based pumping. Once the price plummeted, it probably became unprofitable to work the highest cost rigs. They come off the market until the price rebounds. Of course, I'm not in that industry, but this would be my guess.

That was my guess too, but just wanted to make sure

Why were they out of use?

There are 2 aspects, and I'm unclear which Whomp meant. 1 is the existing oil producing wells. Some of them can be shut down just turning a valve, but some are permanently capped and much of the equipment removed. That happens to old and low production wells when the price is low because they don't make money. If they are capped, that does not mean that there is no oil there, or that it can't be profitably pumped at some time in the future, but it does mean a large investment to use a well that it is known to be mostly played out already. So once capped, probably abandoned forever. 2 is drilling rigs. (I think this is what Whomp meant) Which has to drill a certain amount of new wells just to replace what is declining or capped in order to maintain constant production. But as the use trend is up, there needs to be a constant level of new drilling to meet that rising demand. If exploration rigs are not in use, then when demand goes up, supply will lag behind it and price will go up.

That was my guess too, but just wanted to make sure

Good idea. I would have simply accepted my own guess since it matches my anecdotal experience. Not very good science, I admit.

I read in the paper that less oil is used around here. I notice traffic is a little better now too. The virtual shut down of the auto industry lately has made this area look a bit... empty? I wonder what the year over year decline in oil use is lately.

e.g. Chrysler was basically shut down for two months for their bankruptcy, and GM is just starting its rolling three month break. I live in the Detroit suburbs and I am noticing a definite reduction in the number of cars driving at rush hour around where I live.

You guys got it. Rig counts will drop from a combination of lack of finance and the plummeting price. The difference here is that rig counts cratered. What took 4 years to build up from 2004 (1100 rigs to 2100 rigs) was destroyed in a space of 3 months starting at October's peak (2100 rigs down to 1100 rigs).

You guys got it. Rig counts will drop from a combination of lack of finance and the plummeting price. The difference here is that rig counts cratered. What took 4 years to build up from 2004 (1100 rigs to 2100 rigs) was destroyed in a space of 3 months starting at October's peak (2100 rigs down to 1100 rigs).


By hurricane Ike?

By hurricane Ike?
More like the Lehman earthquake. ;)

More like the Lehman earthquake. ;)

I didn't know that the gulf got tsunamis

I didn't know that the gulf got tsunamis

He meant the financial system meltdown.

The world in energy statistics - Oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/10/oil)

The amount of proven oil reserves awaiting to be exploited fell last year for the first time in a decade, according to new figures released today. The amount of crude left in the ground was 1.258trn barrels - 3bn less than this time last year.

These figures, revealed in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, are probably the result of a slump in drilling activity due to a fall in the price of oil last year - from $150 per barrel to $30.

At today's rate of use however there is still enough oil to last the next 42 years, according to the oil company although those concerned about Peak Oil say we are closer to running out given demand is expected to rise strongly in the short-term.

The "at today's rate" is misleading.

At 1 percent growth per year the resource will last : 35 years
At 2 percent growth per year the resource will last : 31 years
At 3 percent growth per year the resource will last : 28 years
At 4 percent growth per year the resource will last : 25 years
At 5 percent growth per year the resource will last : 23 years
At 6 percent growth per year the resource will last : 22 years
At 7 percent growth per year the resource will last : 20 years
At 8 percent growth per year the resource will last : 19 years
At 9 percent growth per year the resource will last : 18 years
At 10 percent growth per year the resource will last : 17 years

That's not a lot of time to transform the way the world gets around & does business. :undecide:

The world in energy statistics - Oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/10/oil)



The "at today's rate" is misleading.



That's not a lot of time to transform the way the world gets around & does business. :undecide:

That's the whole point. 2 things to keep in mind: 1 there will be more oil supplies discovered, and 2 new technology will make oil that we currently know about, but can not currently extract from the ground for a reasonable amount of money, something that can be extracted profitably.

So while future oil supplies are a desperate long term problem, any current estimates on the when are largely guesswork. And that's the reason to move away from oil now. Unfortunately, the "wait for the market" approach mean that the day will come when high oil prices will be highly disruptive of the world economy.

95 theory (http://www.canada.com/Peak+Good+Things+Could+Happen/1687437/story.html)

In Rubin's assessment, this need not be a time of deprivation and hardship. The world will become smaller and more intimate as centres of production shift to locations closer to consumers. Employment and prosperity will be more amenable to local control. We will become more familiar with nearby attractions, entertainment and recreational places such as parks. Native wildlife and provincial wilderness areas will assume new value as our attention shifts from the exotic and distant to the familiar and close. Indeed, peak oil may be one of the best things that could happen to us.

xcl
.

The Imminent Crash Of The Oil Supply: What Is Going To Happen And How It Came To Pass That We Weren’t Forewarned (http://www.inteldaily.com/2010/04/oil-crash/)

http://www.inteldaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/eia1.jpg

sry double post

How is the extreme drop in oil price from juli 2008 to ~ october 2008 to be explained? Is this related to the economic crisis somehow?

edit:
Found some answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis

How seriously should this be taken?:

Did High Oil Prices cause the Financial Crash?
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/did-high-oil-prices-cause-financial-crash.php

Oil Caused Recession, Not Wall Street
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-caused-recession-not-wallstreet.php

How is the extreme drop in oil price from juli 2008 to ~ october 2008 to be explained? Is this related to the economic crisis somehow?
Massive negative demand shock owing to the financial crisis and subsequent recession.

How is the extreme drop in oil price from juli 2008 to ~ october 2008 to be explained? Is this related to the economic crisis somehow?

edit:
Found some answers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis
The scary thing is that, when/if the recession lifts oil demand will lift with it. The worldwide recession is actually buying us time.

The scary thing is that, when/if the recession lifts oil demand will lift with it. The worldwide recession is actually buying us time.

Time, that goes mostly unused because with low oil prices and low money supply, people don't feel that much pressure to change anything.

The Imminent Crash Of The Oil Supply: What Is Going To Happen And How It Came To Pass That We Weren’t Forewarned (http://www.inteldaily.com/2010/04/oil-crash/)
The oil isn't going to suddenly run out tomorrow. It'll run out over the next several decades, with prices rising accordingly. As prices rise, other options -- like shale oil, and technologies that rely less on oil, like electric cars -- will become more economically viable. The rise in prices will produce a rise in prices for many other things, lowering living standards, but it won't occur all at once. Human beings are lazy enough that we haven't dealt with this properly yet, but we're also very greedy and innovative -- there are plenty of ways to prevent the doomsday collapse of civilization, and I see no reason to think that we won't take advantage of them.

Peak oil is something that has serious implications for commodity and energy prices and a whole host of issues. But it's not the end of the world, and it's not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. We'll be ok. Maybe a little poorer for not thinking ahead, but civilization won't collapse. :)

The oil isn't going to suddenly run out tomorrow. It'll run out over the next several decades, with prices rising accordingly. As prices rise, other options -- like shale oil, and technologies that rely less on oil, like electric cars -- will become more economically viable. The rise in prices will produce a rise in prices for many other things, lowering living standards, but it won't occur all at once. Human beings are lazy enough that we haven't dealt with this properly yet, but we're also very greedy and innovative -- there are plenty of ways to prevent the doomsday collapse of civilization, and I see no reason to think that we won't take advantage of them.

Peak oil is something that has serious implications for commodity and energy prices and a whole host of issues. But it's not the end of the world, and it's not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. We'll be ok. Maybe a little poorer for not thinking ahead, but civilization won't collapse. :)
Chances are that the last million barrels wont be pumped because they will be worthless

Another ZOMG A PEAK OIL DOOMSDAY prophesy. Just Drill moar.

How seriously should this be taken?:

Did High Oil Prices cause the Financial Crash?
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/did-high-oil-prices-cause-financial-crash.php

Oil Caused Recession, Not Wall Street
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-caused-recession-not-wallstreet.php

From your link...

The take home from my work and that of Hamilton's is that the received wisdom may be wrong. Wall Street, sub-prime and regulatory failure are not the ultimate cause of the economic melt down . The root of this crisis is probably oil.

False statement. The cause to of the economic turmoil on Wall St. was Wall St. It's a little complicated. But in the end, it was Wall St manipulations of everything to squeeze a few extra bucks out that turned the housing bubble into a global financial disaster. Oil only factors because it was, if anything at all, among the last group of straws on the camel's back. And it wasn't even that alone.

I have faith that the Free Market will develop some better solar power, hydrogen fuel cells etc. to sustain us.

I also have faith that the Free Market, acting selfishly of course, will act rather slowly and there will be a great deal of hardship in the time of Peak Oil.

From your link...
False statement. The cause to of the economic turmoil on Wall St. was Wall St. It's a little complicated. But in the end, it was Wall St manipulations of everything to squeeze a few extra bucks out that turned the housing bubble into a global financial disaster. Oil only factors because it was, if anything at all, among the last group of straws on the camel's back. And it wasn't even that alone.


You seem very confident about what is true vs false which is curious since you have no empirical information to back up your claim.

But perhaps you did not read the cited article by Tom Therramus. If you had you would have learned that you have the data arse backwards.

THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE WAS THAT HE CONVINCINGLY SHOWED THAT INSTABILITIES IN OIL PRICE WERE OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.

You seem very confident about what is true vs false which is curious since you have no empirical information to back up your claim.

But perhaps you did not read the cited article by Tom Therramus. If you had you would have learned that you have the data arse backwards.

THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE WAS THAT HE CONVINCINGLY SHOWED THAT INSTABILITIES IN OIL PRICE WERE OCCURRING PRIOR TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.

And? Instabilities in the oil market have been taking place for over a century. Instabilities in the oil market are the norm for the oil market.

However, that has nothing to do with causing the housing bubble. It has nothing to do with the massive fraud on the parts of the mortgage originators. It has nothing to do with the widespread fraud on the part of the bond ratings agencies. It has nothing to do with the vast influx of capital from a variety of sources that fueled the bubble. It has nothing to do with the outstanding complexity of the derivatives that Wall St used to fuel the bubble. It was nothing to do with the invention and propagation of Credit Default Swaps that Wall St created to pretend to insure those derivatives without the messy need to actually buy legitimate insurance.

And, ultimately, oil had nothing (much) to do with the bubble, and the house of cards Wall St built on top of the bubble, going to hell in a hand basket. That was well underway long before the oil prices began running up in `08.

And, ultimately, oil had nothing (much) to do with the bubble, and the house of cards Wall St built on top of the bubble, going to hell in a hand basket. That was well underway long before the oil prices began running up in `08.

Seems clear you that STILL have not read the Tom Therramus article. He addresses the very issue of timing that you raise. Also, his argument rests on price instability NOT price per se.

Also try reading -

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6025#

and

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/consequences_of.html

The most interesting question is why did Wall Street build this "House of Cards" - recklessly acting against the interests of clients, stockholders and society at large. The links provide a glimpse of a plausible and scary rationale for Wall Street's immoral behavior.

Oil now depends primarily on transportation (60% of global oil consumption) as it continues to be squeezed out of other energy markets. Assuming we're already at peak then the process of transitioning to gas, coal and uranium based options will only accelerate the decline of the autocratic regimes that control 80% of oil.

Seems clear you that STILL have not read the Tom Therramus article. He addresses the very issue of timing that you raise. Also, his argument rests on price instability NOT price per se.

Also try reading -

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6025#

and

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/consequences_of.html

The most interesting question is why did Wall Street build this "House of Cards" - recklessly acting against the interests of clients, stockholders and society at large. The links provide a glimpse of a plausible and scary rationale for Wall Street's immoral behavior.

I'll read the links later. But I'm sure they won't change the fact that the financial crisis simply had nothing to do with oil.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/

The year 2006 may be remembered for civil strife in Iraq, the nuclear weapon testing threat by North Korea, and the genocide in Darfur, but now it appears that another world event was occurring at the same time—without headlines, but with far-reaching consequence for all nations.

That’s the year that the world’s conventional oil production likely reached its peak, the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Vienna, Austria, said Tuesday.

According to the 25-year forecast in the IEA's latest annual World Energy Outlook, the most likely scenario is for crude oil production to stay on a plateau at about 68 to 69 million barrels per day.

In this scenario, crude oil production "never regains its all-time peak of 70 million barrels per day reached in 2006," said IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2010.

In previous years, the IEA had predicted that crude oil production would continue to rise for at least another couple of decades.

Now, because of rising oil prices, declines in investment by the oil industry, and new commitments by some nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the new forecast says oil production is likely to be lower than the IEA had expected.

...

I fail to see how cutting greenhouse gas emissions plays into the horrific outcome of a output maximization.

IE. If such legislation is reducing oil output, then that's a good thing right? For the environment?

There was an article recently about peak coal, too ...
Now, there's a LOT of coal, but it's always been a function of getting it out of the ground in an economic and environmentally stable way. It's not like oil, where you can drain an oil basin due to it being liquid.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html
There are two reasons to believe that coal prices are likely to soar in the years ahead. First, a spate of recent studies1, 2, 3, 4, 5 suggests that available, useful coal may be less abundant than has been assumed — indeed that the peak of world coal production may be only years away. One pessimistic study1 published in 2010 concluded that global energy derived from coal could peak as early as 2011.
I have a subscription, so I don't know if it's open access ... sorry.
The podcast from that week has an interview, too.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/101109-peak-oil-iea-world-energy-outlook/


I don't doubt Peak Oil with regards to crude is here or very near, but it seems like non-crude sources are ramping up to allow our total consumption growth to continue.


From http://omrpublic.iea.org/

Total supply Global oil supply rose by 0.4 mb/d to 88.1 mb/d in November, largely due to increased non-OPEC production, notably from Canada, Kazakhstan and Brazil.

For Crude 4Q10 global throughputs are estimated at 73.8 mb/d, 1.8 mb/d less than 3Q10, but still a healthy 1.3 mb/d above a year ago.

Total demand Global oil product demand is revised up by 130 kb/d to 87.4 mb/d in 2010, and by 260 kb/d to 88.8 mb/d in 2011

I also read somewhere that because the industry is starting to tap more higher cost supplies like deepwater sources and oil shale, we shouldn't have a price shock as we did 3 and 4 years ago. I don't have time to track down those links though, but it sort of makes sense to me. Prices rise but new sources will help minimize any shock to the system... It could happen, a lack of a price shock I mean.

There was an article recently about peak coal, too ...
Now, there's a LOT of coal, but it's always been a function of getting it out of the ground in an economic and environmentally stable way. It's not like oil, where you can drain an oil basin due to it being liquid.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468367a.html

I have a subscription, so I don't know if it's open access ... sorry.
The podcast from that week has an interview, too.

energy content peak occurred in 1998...

Lack of conventional energy? There is many non conventional solutions. There is one of those:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Solar_updraft_tower.svg/400px-Solar_updraft_tower.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

http://web.archive.org/web/20101223120013/http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/images/enviromission_solar_tower.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnviroMission
http://web.archive.org/web/20070218234949/http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/02/australian_sola.html

But people should hurry to build such things, because when Oil and coal run out in few years, then can be problems, really.

The problems with all alternative energy sources is that they are more costly than fossil fuels for energy output. Part of that is because we do not capture the externalities from fossil fuels (which is what carbon taxes are intended to do). And we also have the problem that R&D in alternative energy has been lagging, because government has been funding too much of what we already have instead of what we need. So it's still mostly a future thing.

And... because of that soon someone may wake up with his hand in the potty... Because when oil will run out, there will be too late to convert to other energy sources in one year. This example power plant based on not-convectional energy will be about to ready in 2020. And this project have already few years, so take this in your calculations.

Edit: and I am not new to this problem, as I read about Peak Oil on Polish site and forum dedicated to this problem from about 4 years already.

The problems with all alternative energy sources is that they are more costly than fossil fuels for energy output. Part of that is because we do not capture the externalities from fossil fuels (which is what carbon taxes are intended to do). And we also have the problem that R&D in alternative energy has been lagging, because government has been funding too much of what we already have instead of what we need. So it's still mostly a future thing.

There's just general underinvestment, too. I look at my personal investments into energy, and I find that most of my investments (at the personal level) focus on increasing my energy efficiency and not on increasing my access to alternatives. I spend $$$ on an efficient car, insulation and weathering, more efficient electronics, etc.

There does have to be a switch over to other sources of energy at some point. The question is not if but when. There is also the question of how much of a impact price increases and shortages will have on the economy.

What we'll probably see is more re-urbanization as gas price-increases/shortages make suburban life untenable for working class families. More people will be riding commuter trains, bikes and walking to work instead of driving. Solar panels and the like will become increasingly popular.

There is already a move to go towards more natural lighting and watching less TV. As people move to healthier fruits and veggies we'll need less energy for cooking. We'll use less and less fossil fuel and more renewable energy, but there will probably be bumps along the way.

I don't think life as we currently know it(big screen TVs, SUVs, etc.) will still exist after the change over. There will be those who try to hang on to it as long as they can. It will come as a shock to them when they can no longer fill up their gas tank for under a $100.00, when a pound of beef cost $50.00 and when regulations put a huge tax on their fossil-full powered electric bill.

You just know that the fossil fuel industry is going to do everything it can to survive and profit for as long as possible(Global Warming will get worse).

And... because of that soon someone may wake up with his hand in the potty... Because when oil will run out, there will be too late to convert to other energy sources in one year. This example power plant based on not-convectional energy will be about to ready in 2020. And this project have already few years, so take this in your calculations.

Edit: and I am not new to this problem, as I read about Peak Oil on Polish site and forum dedicated to this problem from about 4 years already.

Oil is not going to just "run out". What will happen is that as demand comes to exceed supply, the price will go up a lot and it will force dislocations and disruptions of the economy. And it won't be a smooth process.

Yes. That's why it is even worse. It can lead to wars, rebels, strikes, civil wars? And who knows what else...

Yes. That's why it is even worse. It can lead to wars, rebels, strikes, civil wars? And who knows what else...

http://www.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/mad-max-4-fury-road-1.jpg

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/02/shell-20110214.html#more

Shell has published an update to its 2008 Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050. (Earlier post.) Those energy scenarios—Scramble and Blueprints—remain a credible vision of what may lie ahead, Shell said. The new booklet—Signals & Signposts—updates the company’s thinking by taking into account the impact of the global economic and financial crisis.

In summary, Shell believes that the world is entering an era of volatile transitions as the effects of energy consumption on the environment become increasingly clear. The recession interrupted the oil and commodity price boom but it may return. Emerging nations like China and India are going through materially intensive development and a tighter market will continue to put pressure on prices and generate volatility. Improvements in policy-making and strong gains in productivity have helped economies to grow without inflation in the last two decades. Shell does not believe the moderating effect of this combination of good policies, good practices, and good luck will continue into the future.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/954032/peak_oil_is_getting_closer_but_the_world_is_not_re ady.html

here's an interesting Blog post on energy alternatives:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/rossi-provides-more-answers-about.html

Dennis Bushnell

Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist of NASA, was interviewed for an EV World podcast.

1. The most interesting and high potential alternative energy is low energy nuclear reactions.

Bushnell thinks Rossi and cold fusion is low energy nuclear reactions via weak nuclear force. NASA started experiments in 2006 to investigate Widom Larsen theory and used quantum theory to guide and optimize their work.

LENR technology by itself could potentially solve all of our energy and climate problems.

I think we are almost over the "we do not understand it" problem. I think we are almost over the "this does not produce anything useful" problem. I think this will go forward fairly rapidly now. If it does, this is capable of, by itself, completely changing geo-economics, geo-politics, and solving climate issues.

2. halophytes (salt water plants)

Want to use this for biomass. Irrigating the Sahara with the mediterranian would produce enough biomass to replace all fossil fuel. It could also produce food to feed the world. This is why he lists it above cyanobacteria. 68% of fresh water is used for farming. So using salt water would free up the fresh water.

3. cyanobacteria and algae. more productive than halophytes. Algae is cost challenged. Joule Unlimited has cyanobacteria can use waste water and sunlight (20,000 gallons per acre at $50/barrel)

4. Conservation and energy efficiency (30% energy reduction)

5. Geothermal power

6. nanoplastic photovoltaics

7. solar thermal concentrators (water heating)

8. high altitude wind

9. burned biomass

10. Distributed generation

apparently a high ranking science official at Nasa who holds several energy related patents believes LENR is likely real and going to be mastered in one of the coming few decades. he takes Andrea Rossi's recent attempt seriously.

his second point also provides a plausible solution to fossil fuel shortage problems.

Rossi - 1 gram of matter (Nickel) produces 23 million kWh of power. Rossi is describing the energy that is generated as thermal/heat and at a low grade temperature. Converting to electricity would be at about 5% efficiency.
How come they're only getting "a few hundred" then?

m6Q8rFkYxkA&feature=related

verbatim quote from IEA Chief Economist: "the age of cheap oil is over."

Even the World Bank is acknowledging they'll likely be trouble within the next few years.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/9038/World-Likely-To-Face-Severe-Oil-Crunch

m6Q8rFkYxkA&feature=related

verbatim quote from IEA Chief Economist: "the age of cheap oil is over."

I'm afraid that actually means "the age of independent but weak weak oil producing countries is over"... more wars on the horizon.

They figured out how to turn trees into oil. I'm not terribly concerned. I imagine the hippies are screaming in terror though. Higher priced oil will drive the alternatives faster though which is good.

They figured out how to turn trees into oil.
They did, did they?

I find some of the trends really interesting. The change in the price/supply ratio of the last ten years is pretty striking. In many ways, the amount of oil flowing now, when it's $80 is nearly the same as when it was $60. But when I ask people about adapting to these changes in oil prices, there's almost no difference. Almost no one I know is spending money on adapting or mitigating rises in oil supplies, and they're certainly not ready for any shocks.

There's a trend of increasing gdp/barrel of oil, imply better economic efficiency, but it's not a very strong one. It's not faster than some of the changes in the price of oil. This is pretty scary, because it means that, even with increased scarcity, there's the risk of scarcity actually causing real poverty. If the scarcity was happening more slowly than efficiency gains, then we'd expect increasing wealth despite falling oil supplies. But I'm not very hopefully, looking at those trends.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/weve-hit-peak-oil-now-comes-permanent-price-volatility.ars

From Nature magazine.

It's a good thing we have alternative energy.

can't (easily) make transportation fuels from windmills and solar panels. :(

I think this guy has it about right. High oil prices are going to bring back localized production:

smRo7UFUuwM

actually, scrap that. if a similar rise in interest rates to the one he describes happens a second time, the European debt crisis is going to completely blow up and the demand for oil (and everything else) will tank again. it'll be a replay of 2008 basically, except without the government backstops.

can't (easily) make transportation fuels from windmills and solar panels. :(


There some things you can do with electricity from windmills and solar panels to power vehicles.

Electric motors. The Nissan leaf is pure electric.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells. This is where it's eventually headed.

Not everyone needs to drive. We're becoming increasingly urban. Public transport use will most certainly become more common as the price of oil rises. There will be more localization and walkable cities will become more popular. More people will ride bicycles than before. No need to go back to horse and buggy.

Really only long distance transportation needs fossil fuels. And not even all of that. One major issue though is the sheer mass of investment necessary to change over the system.

nFwAxK1GyPE&list=FL7V3JbkxiaxApLJBktd6s5w&index=1&feature=plpp_video

Very good hour long interview with Nicole Foss on a broad range of peak-oil related topics.

can't (easily) make transportation fuels from windmills and solar panels. :(


Trains?

Maybe it will just be individual transportation that will be coming to an end.

Individual transportation will not end it will just be used less especially in towns and cities.

Individual transportation will not end it will just be used less especially in towns and cities.
Individual transportation might have a different meaning.

There some things you can do with electricity from windmills and solar panels to power vehicles.

Electric motors. The Nissan leaf is pure electric.
Still only makes up, what, less than 1% of the market?

Hydrogen Fuel Cells. This is where it's eventually headed.
Meh, we've been hearing that for ages now.

Not everyone needs to drive. We're becoming increasingly urban.
Not really in the US. I'm too lazy to try to look up stats but I'd be willing to bet suburbs are growing faster than cities, many of which have really crappy public transport & have been designed with individual car owners in mind.

T Public transport use will most certainly become more common as the price of oil rises. There will be more localization and walkable cities will become more popular. More people will ride bicycles than before. No need to go back to horse and buggy.
What about all the people stuck out in the 'burbs though? Maybe the suburbs will become the new slums.

Individual transportation will not end it will just be used less especially in towns and cities.

That's great news for town and city dwellers, especially in North America.

Peak oil is the top of the oil production ability of all sources and considers fields not yet discovered. Even a huge new find on the scale of Gwawar in Saudi would only delay the inevitable, but no such find has been made since '48 when it was discovered though other large finds have been made this is the mother of all oil fields. There are signs that Saudi itself is peaking. Once we are past peak oil why then there's the down slope, when things become terribly expensive. Being expensive simply prices some out of the market and this is already happening. Certainly a rich and amiable slut diva may afford to go joyriding with her sleazy friends and pushers for she has millions and has not yet noticed the price of oil impacting her lifestyle. Good for her and the whole of the 1% with her. The average Joe who is put off by her antics and brings home $10 or $20/hr with a daily hour long commute to the city is certainly starting to feel the pinch. What is the pinch btw? It is competition with all the worlds consumers of oil, and their demand upon production. Demand is increasing as more of the world's people achieve the wealth needed to live the American dream. So rising demand, coupled with falling supply pushes up prices which cuts more people out of the market. As there is a downward trending line of world oil production there is an invisible upward trending line that we are all on and that is the point where we are priced out of the market as individuals.

This is for oil and all its products. Fertilizer is a biggy. Without fertilizer from oil, and the ability to transport it from the refineries and its increasing expense do to decreasing production one can imagine another graph with the line trending down, and that is food production. As oil production becomes less so does food production as they are tied. To get food from the farms to the consumer requires more increasingly expensive oil. So there is a downward trending line on a graph of fertilizer and oil production and an upward trending invisible line which we are all on where each of us as individuals are priced out of eating, and this is starting too as food prices start their inevitable rise.

With farms and rice fields producing less we must start on the downward line of a graph from where the carrying capacity of the planet is today to where it is without oil, at the bottom of that first graph, the peak oil one. On the way down that line there is much misery and starvation of masses of people whose parents rode the gravy train up to cheap energy availability and production capacity to fill the world with the humanity whose numbers are out of control. We will go from peak people of perhaps what, 8 billions? Towards the new capacity of perhaps less than half that in an event I call the Great Death. My personal opinion of a base # for the carrying capacity of the planet is something less than two billions which is more than the 1 billion before oil because there are alternative energy sources that will provide for some fraction of the oil production energy loss.

The alternatives taking the place of oil is a wild fancy imo, a delusion of wishful thinking I'm sorry to say. The amount of oil that goes into making a wind turbine is considerable, and to remove a ton of coal requires a good bit of oil.

I don't see much hope.

The problem with "renewable" energy is that it is also largely dependent on non-renewable resources.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/27/rare-minerals-global-renewables-industry?intcmp=122

I consider that looking for a large scale solution is unwise. Expecting the government to do something for you in preparation for the coming crisis... not going to happen. Community solutions, small group solutions that an individual or group of thinking individuals might take to prepare, that is something within our control. If one sees a truck barreling down one gets out of the way. How one gets out of the way of the end of oil is the trick but not thinking about it until it happens is the way of most.

A gravity fed source of water near the home, a bag of potatoes, not the irradiated kind or GM sort but the kind which will grow eyes, its a cheap solution. Having a shady spot with stored food for when the bullets are flying is better.

So where are you gonna make your stand Cav? Oregon or the Philippines?

Philippines, its more civilized. ;) Plus we have 2 rice fields so far, we live in a place where the water flows from the hills without fail, and the electricity is partially hydro but not all. Actually I have little notion of it reaching here in the event of a crisis, the people in the cities will use all it for a while.

I am going to build a catamaran, have the bi-axial fiberglass and epoxy already stored. Also a 12V diving compressor as part of a hookah dive system, 100ft of air line allows 40 ft down and walking around room on the bottom. Figure there will be lots of 12V batteries around and have a small solar charger. Figure 2 days charging for a half day diving at worst. Spear fishing 40' down, sure, but mostly setting and checking bamboo fish traps.

If it all comes to nothing well that's great, but if not at least we've got a plan and we eat the rice from the fields anyway, and having a cat, maybe 30', would be a blast. So, if the fit doesn't hit the shan, no harm done.

I don't want to thrive after the collapse. I want the collapse to be replaced by thriving

Ultimately, oil is something dirty, but we need to live with it for the time being. Hopefully we can get off our addiction soon, though.

I don't want to thrive after the collapse. I want the collapse to be replaced by thriving

It's nice to want that. I'd love for everyone to thrive too.