NationStates Jolt Archive

okay, so in relation to the "end of the world" site thread, I was reading around and saw this:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/


and I have to say, I'm a bit concerned. I don't know about all this person's data, but its got me a bit rattled. The idea is, with peak production passed, oil will become progressively and substantially more expensive, and we've become so dependent on it, not just for transporation, but food production, manufacturing, et cetera. So, the claim on the site is that in the midst of the crisis and collapse, we won't have the time or resources to research and refit our infrastructure to alternative sources.

Anybody else worried about this? Should I start hoarding ammunition, canned food, and fertile women?

not at all worried i live in the boonies, can easily live off of my garden and already have plenty of weapons an canned goods, though i am kinda lacking in the woman category.

Anybody else worried about this? Should I start hoarding ammunition, canned food, and fertile women?

lol.

Yes, the oil crash is something to worry about, but one has to keep in mind, that unlike many of the other scenarios on that site, importantly, it IS survivable. It will, however change society drastically.

The most important thing to move away from oil is domestic transportation; international transport can be solved by means other than oil, things will just be slower.

The main problems are that society has hedged its bets on oil, has become addicted to it like a drug.

Society, however, is unlikely to be pushed back more than about 150 years technology wise though. And certain elements of modern society will remain (the railways, for example, though electrification of tracks will become more important than ever).

The railways will again dominate domestic mass transportation (mainly due to their flexibility and the potential for electrification which has the advantage of being able to switch to practically any power source - switch the grid over and you've got a solution, however it will take time for society to switch over. The coming decades will likely be characterised by a series of economic shocks (brief periods of economic prosperity seperated by serious economic recessions or even depressions), resulting from society trying to use the level of oil we do now again.

The important thing is that this is NOT the end of human society, just a period of MASSIVE realignment. Note that the wars aren't inevitable, though they're certainly likely; it's just a likely course of action.

Should I start hoarding ammunition, canned food, and fertile women?

Yes. Regardless of any oil crisis.

"Peak Oil" has been a cyclically recurring EOTW scenario since the first oil crisis of the 1970's.

Oddly enough, (and this has been causing some comment) supposedly "Dry holes" that have been pumped out, are showing up having useable quantities of oil in them again.
(this does not fit with the tradtional model of how Oil comes to be somewhere.)

"Peak Oil" has been a cyclically recurring EOTW scenario since the first oil crisis of the 1970's.

Oddly enough, (and this has been causing some comment) supposedly "Dry holes" that have been pumped out, are showing up having useable quantities of oil in them again.
(this does not fit with the tradtional model of how Oil comes to be somewhere.)It probably seeped in from small fields nearby.

The rate that oil is being used already passed the rate that new oil is being discovered, so the beginning of the oil peak is not even a matter of when. At least the end of the oil peak, the time when oil consumed per person per year begins to decrease, hasn't happened yet.

I've given this a lot of thought--in fact I'm writing a novel about it but that's besides the point--and I think that unless we act now to pour billions into finding a renewable energy source instead of trying to get more oil, "civilized" life is going to come to a complete standstill, all major world economies will collapse and the world will fall into complete chaos. Sound fun? Keep driving your H2. Oil is going to run out soon, and with the rate of population growth in the world, it will run out very soon. Now matter how many more tiny deposits of oil we find, it's only going to account for a smaller and smaller portion of oil that we need; so eventually, we will run out of oil, and it's the actions we take now that determine whether the human race survives or perishes with the oil supply.

Anybody else worried about this? Should I start hoarding ammunition, canned food, and fertile women?

Fertile women everywhere say: good luck with that.

Personally I'm hoarding male models in my closet.

I'm not worried. I'm Norwegian, and our plan is tp accumulate a lot of money on oil exports. Then, we and the Saudis will buy the entire world. The rest of you will just have to move somewhere else.

Is the Peak Oil crisis unavoidable?

Yes

EDIT: Nevermind. I forgot this was 2005. It's not.

It's not such a problem. Sure it's inconvenient for people who drive gas guzzlers, but it's hardly the end of civilization. Let's say the liquid petroleum production peak is today. What happens? Oil prices go up. People pump more oil in order to make more money and open less productive fields. When prices are high enough it becomes economical to convert coal to oil, or use oil shale, or syntetic fuels made from plants, ect. There won't suddenly be no oil.

If the United States drove Japanese style cars they could roughly halve their oil consumption. If everyone drove Japanese style hybrid cars, perhaps the U.S. could quater their oil consumption. These changes in car stocks will take years to occur, but as I mentioned, oil isn't about to disappear.

A lot of China's oil use is for small scale electrical generation. Less will be used for this purpose as their infrastructure improves. Not that China is likely to use less oil any time soon, they will want to buy more cars, and Japan will want to sell them hybrids.

So, increasing oil costs will be inconvenient, but no disaster. We might end up glad due to environmental benefits.

I'm starting to like this place. This is the first place I've seen a genuine discussion of Oil Peak.

The potenial threat of war between the US and China over oil is why I support keeping our nuclear arsenal. It might be the biggest assistance in helping the US avoiding a major war with a country.

Sure, we may be punks now or later. But wars on such large scales is far more serious than Iraq.

"Peak Oil" has been a cyclically recurring EOTW scenario since the first oil crisis of the 1970's.

Oddly enough, (and this has been causing some comment) supposedly "Dry holes" that have been pumped out, are showing up having useable quantities of oil in them again.
(this does not fit with the tradtional model of how Oil comes to be somewhere.)
"Dry holes" aren't really dry, they just don't have enough pressure anymore to shoot the oil all the way to the surface by themselves and something else has to be injected to increase the pressure, like water or nitrogen.

And sometimes, the oil is in these small pockets of rock called donut holes that make extraction very difficult. New technologies are allowing us to get at it, but at a higher cost.

And that's what peak oil refers to, not that we have run out of oil, which we eventually will, but that we are running out of cheap easily extractable oil.

There is still a lot of oil left in those donut holes and fields without pressure, also very deep in the sea and probably in deeper ground too, but all those places make it very difficult and expensive to extract oil.

So, it's not a nice scenario, but it's not cataclysmic either.

The potenial threat of war between the US and China over oil is why I support keeping our nuclear arsenal. It might be the biggest assistance in helping the US avoiding a major war with a country.
I don't really see how this works. It's not easy to capture oil. For one thing, the Middle-East is a long way from China. The declining production of Iraqi oil wells since the U.S. invasion shows that extracting oil from captured territory is extremely difficult, even if you have massive millitary superiority. Or will America go to war to support the Philipines claim to the Spratlie's islands' oil? Sounds unlikely.

War due to stupidity is possible, war due to oil is unlikely: "Hey middle-easteners! Let us influence your oil policy! We're communist atheists! We'll get on fine!"

It's not such a problem. Sure it's inconvenient for people who drive gas guzzlers, but it's hardly the end of civilization. Let's say the liquid petroleum production peak is today. What happens? Oil prices go up. People pump more oil in order to make more money and open less productive fields. When prices are high enough it becomes economical to convert coal to oil, or use oil shale, or syntetic fuels made from plants, ect. There won't suddenly be no oil.

So, increasing oil costs will be inconvenient, but no disaster. We might end up glad due to environmental benefits.
But what happens when we run out of coal? What happens if we don't find a renewable energy source before we run out of oil? Sure oil prices will skyrocket (even more) and we'll buy hybrid cars and other better mileage cars, but that will only slow the whole process. We will run out of oil as a "cheap" and virtually universal energy source. There will be pockets left, but that's hardly anything compared to the demand. The only way for this to work out is if we start working on finding an energy source that need not rely on oil or any fossil fuels at all, and will never run out.

According to the site (just one guys view, I admit), I think the "cataclysm" isn't really the risk of no oil, but the consistent and sizable rising of oil prices. The world he describes is "post-cheap oil". He seems to be making a case that oil is so central to every aspect of economy and industry, that once it rises to a certain point and keeps rising, there will not be sufficient cost-efficient energy remaining to make the switch over to something else.

Personally, I think whether the problem is disastrous or just difficult, the best solution would be improved alternative technologies. For instance, right now the EROEI for solar and wind is crappy, but early computers were expensive and used punch cards. If alt-energy techs came into common usage and were researched more, would they hopefully not also drop in price and increase in effectiveness?

According to the site (just one guys view, I admit), I think the "cataclysm" isn't really the risk of no oil, but the consistent and sizable rising of oil prices. The world he describes is "post-cheap oil". He seems to be making a case that oil is so central to every aspect of economy and industry, that once it rises to a certain point and keeps rising, there will not be sufficient cost-efficient energy remaining to make the switch over to something else.

Personally, I think whether the problem is disastrous or just difficult, the best solution would be improved alternative technologies. For instance, right now the EROEI for solar and wind is crappy, but early computers were expensive and used punch cards. If alt-energy techs came into common usage and were researched more, would they hopefully not also drop in price and increase in effectiveness?

Solar will be useful in some countries - particularly here in Australia, where most of our country is as good as useless anyway (desert) and gets plenty of sun - even some coastal areas get 300 days of sun a year down here (that number is for the Gold Coast by the way, which is near one of our major cities, Brisbane, which I'd assume would have similar numbers).

It will be difficult, and more expensive to build these facilities post peak, but not impossible. And when oil outputs start to decline, believe me, energy companies will see the need for alternative energy.

Hopefully governments will also see the need for the expansion of rail - which is really the only form of large-scale transportation which can be easily electrified.

Lets all keep in mind that this really isn't an EOTW thing, it's a realignment, albeit a large one. There probably will be a (brief) period of disorder and chaos, though.

Phylum Chordata: Why the US and China? The US is currently the largest user of oil. China is just now entering into the oil age, but (thank goodness!) the Chinese government is seriously considering high speed rail technology for the country (thank goodness!)

Achtung 45: Exactly. Unfortunately, however, moving to more fuel efficient vehicles won't do much (although it will be important for construction of infrastructure!), since people will merely use their cars more with more efficient cars - it's already happened. But who knows?

The world has massive reserves of coal compared to oil, which aren't exactly going to run out. Australia alone has enough to satisfy completely all its domestic energy needs for the next 200 or so years (or so I recall hearing somewhere). However, one wonders why you would change coal to oil when coal is an excellent energy source itself (it's likely that it will be used to 'bridge the gap' for rail until electrification of rail networks is completed).

Though sensible government energy policies make sense, the market is already correcting for the peak oil situation. The fact that the Ford Motor Company and General Motors were both reduced to junk status by S&P shows that if companies do not adapt to these changing circumstances, they will be made to suffer one way or the other by market forces.

I don't really see how this works. It's not easy to capture oil. For one thing, the Middle-East is a long way from China. The declining production of Iraqi oil wells since the U.S. invasion shows that extracting oil from captured territory is extremely difficult, even if you have massive millitary superiority. Or will America go to war to support the Philipines claim to the Spratlie's islands' oil? Sounds unlikely.

War due to stupidity is possible, war due to oil is unlikely: "Hey middle-easteners! Let us influence your oil policy! We're communist atheists! We'll get on fine!"

The reason is because war to claim territory or influence of oil fields like Iraq aren't the only possibilities. If you have economies that are having problems, OTHER issues can stem up. Other smaller nations will become unstable as well as the bigger and most sensitive countries. There is possible turmoil through trade issues that could present itself.

Well - at the moment, the UK energy mix looks like this:

41% reliant upon Natural Gas
32% reliant upon Oil
17% reliant upon Coal
8% reliant upon Nuclear
2% reliant upon Renewable

We have decreasing indigenous supplies of oil and natural gas - the North Sea gas fields are just reaching their peak output, meaning that we're about to turn the other way and begin depleting them from maximum output. The increased usage of oil here is a result of the 'dash for gas' in the 90s due to the increasing price of oil - resulting in a decrease in oil usage.

Half of our coal is imported, simply because it is cheaper than having to extract it ourselves. Contrary to popular belief, we have enough coal under the UK in various seams and pockets to keep us going for 1000-2000 years, it's merely the cost of extraction that stops us getting it out.

Nuclear had levelled off at about 7%, but with the Government now making plans to open 8 new Nuclear power stations (a U-turn on their decision to not have any more Nuclear stations) is showing an increased dependancy upon nuclear.

Renewable energy, such as wind, solar and hydroelectric, has shown a steady increase over the past 15 years. The main benefit of renewable energy supplies, such as hydroelectric, is to counter the 'Coronation Street tea break' effect. It's a well-documented fact that when there is a break during Coronation Street or Eastenders, millions of people go into their kitchens and switch on the kettle, creating a demand on the National Grid. Hydroelectic power stations - such as that in Blaneau Ffestinog can be started up and fully operational within two minutes, compared to the several hours it takes to fire up a coal powered station - thus serving the Nation more effectively.

We need a change of emphasis in the UK on our energy needs, we need to have more sustainability which takes into account the effects that power generation has on the Environment.

(Heh - I'm an A-level Geography student, so we kinda get taught this) :)

I'm starting to like this place. This is the first place I've seen a genuine discussion of Oil Peak.

The potenial threat of war between the US and China over oil is why I support keeping our nuclear arsenal. It might be the biggest assistance in helping the US avoiding a major war with a country.

Sure, we may be punks now or later. But wars on such large scales is far more serious than Iraq.

Why the US and China? That seems too unlikely. Unless there are some strategists within the US military who actually want a war with China. But, you gotta be highly insane to do that. :eek:

The only other country I've ever lived in was Japan, but I noticed it was pretty easy to live in Japan without a car. I wonder if more American cities will have to develop and improve their public transportation, and maybe even retract their sprawl (no idea how this would be done, but I would imagine as gas becomes prohibitively pricey for a long commute, people will gradually migrate to centralized population centers).

The main benefit of renewable energy supplies, such as hydroelectric, is to counter the 'Coronation Street tea break' effect. It's a well-documented fact that when there is a break during Coronation Street or Eastenders, millions of people go into their kitchens and switch on the kettle, creating a demand on the National Grid. Hydroelectic power stations - such as that in Blaneau Ffestinog can be started up and fully operational within two minutes, compared to the several hours it takes to fire up a coal powered station - thus serving the Nation more effectively.


Looks like geography hasn't changed much in the 20 years since I studied it, apart from changing the name of the power station.

Posters seem to be focussing on Peak oil and fuel, but they need to remember oil is no longer just a fuel. It is used to make plastics, fertilisers and many of the modern drugs we use today.

Yep - Crude oil is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons derived mainly from the remains of sea creatures and plants which sank to the bottom of the oceans millions of years ago. Subsequent deposits compressed this material and the high pressures and temperatures which developed - and the absence of air - converted into oil and gas.

From crude oil we get, to name but a few:

Calor Gas, Camping Gaz
Petrol
Petrochemicals
Jet fuel
Central heating fuel
Lubricating oil
Fuel for ships and power stations
Candles, grease for bearings, polish
Roofing, road surfacing