NationStates Jolt Archive


What might be the effects of Peak Oil?

PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 18:51
Sober look at the effects of a declin in world oil production starting now. I like this article because it's not, "we're all headed for the Stone Age" or "they're creating new cars that run on your own farts," either.

A number of analysts are saying that peak oil is here now (see Chapter 1, Question 8). Suppose they are correct -- what kind of changes can we expect to see in the years ahead?

In this chapter, we will look at the implications of peak oil now -- how we can expect oil production to change between now and 2030, and how this decline in production is likely to affect the economy. While there are many who believe that peak oil is still a few years away (the newsletter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas of Ireland predicts a peak in 2011, for example), this analysis will assume that the peak year is 2006, with the decline starting in 2007. If this assumption turns out to be a little early, the worst that will happen is that we will be a little ahead in our planning.

1. If peak is now, how much of a decline in world oil production can be expected in the next few years?

Figure 1 shows historical world oil production, together with two projections of what the future will bring:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_nzjabESsGNY/RqqjINRZrPI/AAAAAAAAACM/YUsYU_6eJ74/s400/Figure1.jpeg

The first of the projections we call the "symmetric" projection. It simply assumes that oil production will decrease in the future in a manner similar to the way that it increased in the past. This method assumes that 2006 is the peak year; 2007 production will be equal to 2005 production; 2008 production will be equal to 2004; and so on. Thus, the future is expected to be a mirror image of the past.

The second projection is what we call the "analyst average" method. Here, we average five projections assuming peak in the 2005 to 2007 period - two made by Ace, one made by Bakhtiari, and two made by Robelius. We have adjusted all of the projections to a "total liquids" basis for this comparison (that is, including ethanol and other liquid fuels that are similar to oil), so that they are comparable to each other and to the historical data.

Figure 1 shows that the projection methods produce fairly similar results. Both methods show production declining fairly rapidly:

• At 2010 - Symmetric: Minus 9%; Analysts Average: Minus 1%
• At 2020 - Symmetric: Minus 21%; Analysts Average: Minus 23%
• At 2030 - Symmetric: Minus 31%; Analysts Average; Minus 42%

2. How likely is it that future production will follow a pattern similar to Figure 1?

The forecasts shown are only rough approximations. Actual production could be higher, especially if there is a major technology breakthrough. Such breakthroughs take a long time to widely implement --an average of 16 years, according to a recent report by the National Petroleum Council--so the benefit occurs fairly slowly. Another possibility for increased production is an increase in an alternative fuel, such as coal-to-liquid. Such an increase might make the decline somewhat less steep.

There is also a significant risk that future production will be lower than indicated. Social unrest can be a problem in countries with declining production, leading to pipeline attacks. Oil fields may not be developed because their owners lack the necessary funds for investment or the technology required to develop the fields. Some countries may choose to limit production, so as to save oil for later. Also, there is some evidence that newer technology may keep production in a field high until close to the end, then suddenly drop off. If this phenomenon is not adequately reflected in the projections, the estimates of future production may prove to be too high.

3. It seems like it is really the amount of oil per person that makes a difference. What kind of change in oil production is expected on a per capita basis?

The number of people in the world has been rising at between 1% and 2% per year. A graph of historical and expected future world population based on US Census Department estimates is shown in Figure 2.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_nzjabESsGNY/RqqkMdRZrQI/AAAAAAAAACU/LX8fGI8S0R8/s400/Figure2.jpeg

If we use the information in Figures 1 and 2 to calculate oil production per person, the result is as shown in Figure 3.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_nzjabESsGNY/RqqlINRZrRI/AAAAAAAAACc/aIECnV_whSs/s400/Figure3.jpeg

On a per capita basis, the amount of oil produced has been approximately level, at about 4.6 barrels per person, between 1982 and 2006. The forecasts show that the amount of oil per person is expected to decrease to approximately 2.0 to 2.5 barrels per person, by 2030.

4. Does a decrease in per capita oil production really make much difference? I have heard oil represents only a tiny fraction of world revenue.

There is a surprisingly close relationship between the amount of oil consumed and a country's standard of living. Figure 4 shows a comparison of current per capita oil consumption, for selected countries.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_nzjabESsGNY/RqqnDNRZrSI/AAAAAAAAACk/3SYf8sJudII/s400/Figure4.jpeg

Of the countries shown, the United States has the highest consumption, at approximately 25 barrels per person per year. (A barrel is 42 gallons, so 25 barrels a year is 1,050 gallons, or 2.9 gallons per day). Canada is close behind, with about 24 barrels. Germany and the United Kingdom are at a level roughly half of that of the United States, partly because they use more public transportation and partly because they drive smaller cars. Mexico and Russia both have per capita consumption of about 7. Note that this is still above the world-wide average per capita consumption of 4.6, from Figure 3. China and India have the lowest per capita consumption of the countries shown - approximately 2 barrels a year for China and 1 barrel a year for India.

Based on this comparison, there is a huge difference among countries in the amount of oil used. Figure 4 also shows a breakdown of US oil between US-produced and imported. If we consider only US-produced oil, oil production of the United States is about 10 barrels per person per year - close to the level currently used by Germany and the United Kingdom.

5. If world oil production decreases as shown in Figures 1 and 3, what impact will this have on the amount of oil the US consumes?

The US currently imports about 60% of its oil supply. The big question with respect to future US oil supply is how much oil we will continue to import in the future, when world supply begins to decline. Figure 5 shows one possible outcome, on a per capita basis.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_nzjabESsGNY/RqqoCNRZrTI/AAAAAAAAACs/sqJJeg332Ag/s400/Figure5.jpeg

On Figure 5, we show a a hypothetical situation in which US oil imports drop about 10% by 2010, then drop to about half of the current level by 2020 and disappear all together by 2030. These estimates are not much more than guesses. There are a lot of uncertainties about future imports:

• Will a free market in oil continue the way it does today, when demand is much greater than supply?

• Will oil-producing nations keep a disproportionate share of the oil for themselves and their allies?

• Will the US insist on importing enough oil to fuel its SUVs, when some people are literally starving to death, because their country cannot afford oil for tractors and power plants?

We show a worst case scenario for 2030, with imports disappearing entirely. (If imports continue, oil availability in 2030 is likely to be higher). If imports disappear, a rough estimate is that US oil production will be about 5 barrels per person per year in 2030-- a little lower than the current level of 7 for Mexico and Russia. Efficiency advances and other mitigation efforts will presumably provide some benefit, so that the standard of living might be similar to, or somewhat higher than, the standard of living of Mexico and Russia today. The 5 barrels per person per year in 2030 is approximately equal to the US's oil consumption in 1920 -- a very different world than today.

6. Is the decline in availability of oil the only problem the world is likely to face in the years ahead?

No. With all of the years of growth in population and economies, we are reaching limits in many respects.

• Climate change As the result of man's activities, and in particular the growing use of fossil fuels, the world temperature is rising. Many are now saying that the use of fossil fuel should be limited - particularly coal. In North America, coal is often thought of as a possible substitute for oil, because it is in reasonably good supply and the technology for coal-to-liquids exists. Climate change issues make this substitution more questionable.

• Metal shortages Quite a number of metals are now in increasingly short supply - including copper, platinum, and uranium. Some have suggested that uranium shortages may limit nuclear expansion capabilities, but this is disputed by others.

• North American natural gas A shortage of natural gas in North America starting in a few years appears to be a significant possibility. Natural gas from conventional sources is in increasingly short supply. Gas from shale, which is a major "unconventional" source, is looking increasingly non-economic. Liquified natural gas (LNG) from overseas is sometimes thought to be a substitute, but a lack of investment in overseas facilities to process LNG is likely to limit its availability.

• World food supply and fresh water World food supply is under increasing pressure from competition from biofuels, shortages of fresh water for irrigation, crop failures due to climate change, increasing soil degradation and growing world population. Inadequate fresh water is a serious issue in its own right.

7. What are the immediate impacts of an oil shortage expected to be?

As one might expect, an oil shortage is likely to result in higher prices of goods that contain oil or use oil in their processing. Gasoline, diesel fuel, and residential heating fuel will of course be higher priced. Food will also be higher priced, because a considerable amount of oil is used in growing the food, processing it, and transporting it to market. Other types of energy are likely to rise in cost as well, as people shift to alternative fuels. The inflation rate is likely to rise.

While it is not as obvious, It is also likely that there will be actual "outages" of some oil-related products. Gasoline stations may be without gasoline in some areas, particularly when a nearby refinery is temporarily not available because of a storm or unplanned maintenance. Residential heating oil may be difficult to find in some locations. Asphalt may not be available for paving roads. We are already starting to see a few situations like these, because supplies are stretched tight.

If gasoline or another product is temporarily unavailable, there are likely to be indirect impacts as well. Schools may close because diesel is unavailable for buses, and factories may close for lack of a particular part. Liebig's Law of the Minimum says that a process is limited by its least available resource. If oil is not available, even temporarily, economic activity can be seriously impacted.

Some areas that are likely to first feel the impacts of oil shortages are

• Commercial airline flights - Cost of fuel and higher debt costs will be a problem
• Food imported by air - Demand will decline because of much-higher cost
• SUV manufacturers - Demand for large cars will decline precipitously
• Third world countries - These countries are already being priced out of the oil market

8. What is the impact of oil shortages on the financial markets likely to be?

Strange as it may seem, some of the biggest and most immediate impacts of oil shortages are likely to affect financial markets:

• End of the growth paradigm. Economic markets now expect continued growth and expansion. With declining supplies of oil and other necessary resources, this expectation will need to change to a steady state, or even to a planned decline.

• Declining credit availability. Debt is provided with the expectation that an individual's or organization's income will grow, or at least stay level in the years ahead. If this assumption no longer holds, a shift from the very loose credit standards seen in recent years to extremely tight credit seems likely. A recession or depression is likely to ensue.

• Declining stock prices. The value of stocks reflects the expected future earnings of the company. If these earnings are expected to stop growing, and perhaps shrink, the value of the stock can be expected to decline.

• Deflation and/or Inflation. A reduced supply of oil may lead to inflation, as existing monetary supplies "chase" fewer and fewer goods. Also, countries may adjust monetary policies to encourage inflation, if it becomes too difficult to pay off debt in a declining economy. There may also be huge deflationary pressures, as the value of stocks and other investments decline, debt becomes less available, and the economy shrinks.

• Reduced interest in insurance and other financial products. Volatility in monetary supply, declining values of stocks, and problems with the debt markets will all make insurance and other financial products less attractive.

• Declining globalization Declining living standards in third world countries, declining availability of commercial airline flights, increasing cost of global transportation, and increasing volatility of currencies are all likely to act to reduce globalization.

9. What types of jobs are likely to see growth in the years ahead?

• Small businesses, selling goods close to the customer.

• Recycling of all kinds, including clothing and parts from no-longer-wanted buildings.

• Remodeling homes to make them more energy efficient and to accommodate more people in the same space.

• Food production will require more workers than the few farmers we have today. Some may be more like gardeners.

• Energy related jobs - As energy becomes more and more difficult to obtain, a larger and larger share of workers will need to work in this field.

• Scientist and engineers - Needed to develop more energy-efficient approaches. In agriculture, to develop approaches requiring less energy and less fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. In manufacturing, to design factories in this country, to replace factories making goods which can no longer be imported from oversees.

• Manual laborers - As energy becomes more and more expensive, manual labor becomes a more attractive alternative.

10. What are some of the challenges in the years ahead expected to be?

• How do we adapt the transportation system to the new lower supply? Increased fuel efficiency standards for vehicles are unlikely to be enough by themselves. What else can be done without excessive cost-- car pooling? bicycles for short trips? expansion of public transportation programs? more use of distance learning and work-at-home programs? Does it make sense to plan for battery operated vehicles?

• How do we plan for a declining economy? Companies will not want to build a factory, if they know that it will need to be abandoned in ten years for lack of fuel. Oil companies will not want to build pipelines, if they know they can only be used for a short time.

• How do we deal with greatly reduced financial services? If mortgages become unavailable, how do we deal with home ownership? If loans are unavailable, how do businesses plan new factories?

• How do we find adequate resources (both capital and physical resources) to handle all of the investment that is needed in infrastructure? The only resources we have available are those we (1) mine, grow, or otherwise produce; (2) recycle; or (3) import. These resources are needed for other uses as well, including transportation and food.

• How do we find substitutes for the many chemical uses of oil - textiles, building materials, pharmaceuticals? Or do we give priority to oil for these uses?

• How do we protect the food supply? Should farmers be given special access to fuel, through some sort of rationing program? Should people be encouraged to start gardens, to supplement the food supply? How should we train people in low-energy agricultural techniques? Will it be necessary to break up large farms into units that are manageable with less energy?

• How can we avoid future shortages that are likely to have wide-ranging effects? For example, some people are concerned that we may not continue to have enough asphalt to maintain roads. Is this really a problem, and how can this be avoided? How can we circumvent shortages of metals needed to make cars and other consumer goods?

• Resources are unevenly divided. People will want to move to areas with greater resources. How do we deal with the conflict that may ensue? Do we forbid immigration all together? How do we keep countries from fighting over limited resources?

Links by Question

Introduction -1: Chapter 1, Question 8
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2743

Introduction -2: July 2007 Newsletter, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas-Ireland
www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter79_200707.pdf

Q1-1: Updated World Forecasts, Including Saudi Arabia by Ace, July 19, 2007
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2716

Q1-2: The World Oil Production Capacity Model by Samsam Bakhtiari, December 10, 2003 http://www.sfu.ca/%7Easamsamb/conference/WOCAP.htm

Q1-3: Giant Oil Fields - The Highway to Oil: Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production by Frederik Robelius, Uppsala University, March 2007
"http://publications.uu.se/abstract.xsql?dbid=7625

Q2: Facing Hard Truths about Energy by National Petroleum Council, July 18, 2007
http://www.npc.org/Facing_Hard_Truths-71807.pdf

Q5: Net Oil Exports and the Iron Triangle by Jeffrey J. Brown, July 13, 2007
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2767

Q6-1: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Mitigation of Climate Change, 2007
http://www.mnp.nl/ipcc/pages_media/AR4-chapters.htm

Q6-2: Measure of Metal Supply Finds Shortage by David Biello, Scientific American, January 17, 2006
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CEA15-3272-13C8-9BFE83414B7FFE87

Q6-3: Carmakers gear up for the next shortage - platinum, The Mining News, July 6, 2005
http://www.theminingnews.org/news.cfm?newsID=800

Q6-4: Lack of fuel may limit U.S. nuclear power expansion, Massachusetts institute of Technology News Office, March 21, 2007
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html

Q6-5: Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs? by Martin Sevior, March 1, 2007
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2323

Q6-6: A Natural Gas Crisis Coming? by Dave Russum, July 21, 2007
http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/2007/07/natural-gas-crisis-coming_21.html

Q6-7: Facing Hard Truths about Energy by National Petroleum Council, July 18, 2007
http://www.npc.org/Facing_Hard_Truths-71807.pdf

Q6-8: Plank Road fever and the Barnett Shale by Arthur Berman, World Oil Magazine, April 2007
http://worldoil.com/magazine/MAGAZINE_DETAIL.asp?ART_ID=3171&MONTH_YEAR=Apr-2007

Q6-9: Investing in LNG Projects, Dan Amoss, Whiskey and Gunpowder, July 11, 2007
http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/2007/20070711.html

Q6-10: Limits to Growth: the 30 Year Update by Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows, Chelsea Green (June 1, 2004)
Amazon link

Q6-11: Water Tables Falling and Rivers Running Dry by Lester Brown, July 24, 2007
http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Seg/PB2ch03_ss2.htm

Q6-12: Australia's epic drought: The situation is grim by Kathy Marks in The Independent, April 20, 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article2465960.ece

Q6-13: Soil Degradation: A Threat to Developing-Country Food Security by 2020? by Sara J. Scherr, Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 27, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D. C., February, 1999
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/dp27.pdf

Q7: Liebig's law of the minimum from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum
Lunatic Goofballs
08-08-2007, 18:54
I'm beginning to suspect that I'll never own a flying car. :(
Remote Observer
08-08-2007, 18:56
There is a more immediate problem.

Most of the oil nations (all of the Gulf states for sure) have borrowed trillions of dollars on the basis of their projected oil reserves.

There is reason to believe that these projections are inaccurate - that is, that they overrepresented their reserves.

They've borrowed against something that won't be there - and when we start going down the peak, that's the first thing that will be revealed.

Long before we actually hear things stopping, there will be an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a shopping spree at Macy's.
Deus Malum
08-08-2007, 18:56
I'm beginning to suspect that I'll never own a flying car. :(

There's hope. If we ever do produce a fuel system that can efficiently convert water to hydrogen fuel in a vehicle, it should be doable.
CoallitionOfTheWilling
08-08-2007, 19:02
Theres still billions to trillions of barrels of oil in the earth.

Pacific ocean is bound to have lots because it has yet to be sought out for offshore drilling.

Alaska still has lots.

Russia has billions of barrels in its ground, its just refusing to let companies in to do it, when they have 0% efficiency and most of the oil they pump goes on the ground....
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 19:09
Theres still billions to trillions of barrels of oil in the earth.

Pacific ocean is bound to have lots because it has yet to be sought out for offshore drilling.

Alaska still has lots.

Russia has billions of barrels in its ground, its just refusing to let companies in to do it, when they have 0% efficiency and most of the oil they pump goes on the ground....

The problem doesn't come when we run out. It's not like driving a car. The problem comes when we are done with the easy oil and we can no longer raise production at will to meet demand. Peak Oil doesn't mean all the oil's gone. It means we all have to start bidding higher for a diminishing pool.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 19:11
There is a more immediate problem.

Most of the oil nations (all of the Gulf states for sure) have borrowed trillions of dollars on the basis of their projected oil reserves.

There is reason to believe that these projections are inaccurate - that is, that they overrepresented their reserves.

They've borrowed against something that won't be there - and when we start going down the peak, that's the first thing that will be revealed.

Long before we actually hear things stopping, there will be an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a shopping spree at Macy's.

OMG. I actually agree with something you posted. Though, I think the damage from paper debt will pale in comparison to the damage from the depletion of the physical resource.
Remote Observer
08-08-2007, 19:16
OMG. I actually agree with something you posted. Though, I think the damage from paper debt will pale in comparison to the damage from the depletion of the physical resource.

The panic, and inevitable wars, that occur at the revelation that there isn't enough oil to cover the debt will make our current excursion in the Middle East look tame.

Then, the panic will turn to nation fighting nation for remaining resources.

There would be incentive to use nuclear weapons, to take specific players out of the game at the outset. So there would be some limited nuclear exchanges.

Then, the long spiral down, as the last of the oil runs out. By then, no nation will have sufficient infrastructure or capital to be able to marshal any alternative resources to bring things back to the way they were.
Minaris
08-08-2007, 19:18
because it's not, "we're all headed for the Stane Age" .

What's a Stane Age? :p I've heard of Stone, but Stane?

As for the article, it's very good and points out the amount of uncertainty that remains, even if we are at peak.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 19:27
The panic, and inevitable wars, that occur at the revelation that there isn't enough oil to cover the debt will make our current excursion in the Middle East look tame.

Then, the panic will turn to nation fighting nation for remaining resources.

There would be incentive to use nuclear weapons, to take specific players out of the game at the outset. So there would be some limited nuclear exchanges.

Then, the long spiral down, as the last of the oil runs out. By then, no nation will have sufficient infrastructure or capital to be able to marshal any alternative resources to bring things back to the way they were.

Predictions are dangerous. Especially in regards to the future. Energy depletion may make wars increasingly hard to fight. Politicians are going to be under enormous pressure to deal with domestic issues which will probably require cooperation with other countries - even countries that are viewed as traditional enemies.
RLI Rides Again
08-08-2007, 19:29
9. What types of jobs are likely to see growth in the years ahead?

• Scientist and engineers - Needed to develop more energy-efficient approaches. In agriculture, to develop approaches requiring less energy and less fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. In manufacturing, to design factories in this country, to replace factories making goods which can no longer be imported from oversees.

It's news like this which makes me glad I decided to apply for Maths at Uni instead of Economics and Political Science.
Remote Observer
08-08-2007, 19:30
Predictions are dangerous. Especially in regards to the future. Energy depletion may make wars increasingly hard to fight. Politicians are going to be under enormous pressure to deal with domestic issues which will probably require cooperation with other countries - even countries that are viewed as traditional enemies.

Yes, they'll be harder to fight with conventional forces. Which is why, instead of fighting at the oil source, you'll nuke your competition in their homeland.

Sink their ships at sea using nuclear submarines.

If you end up sending a conventional force somewhere, they may stay there indefinitely - you won't be able to afford to send troops home on leave.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 19:33
It's news like this which makes me glad I decided to apply for Maths at Uni instead of Economics and Political Science.

Yep. It's why I'm back in school looking for a geology degree.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 19:38
Yes, they'll be harder to fight with conventional forces. Which is why, instead of fighting at the oil source, you'll nuke your competition in their homeland.

Sink their ships at sea using nuclear submarines.

If you end up sending a conventional force somewhere, they may stay there indefinitely - you won't be able to afford to send troops home on leave.

Nuclear arsenals are extrememly energy intensive to maintain. Ocean going fleets are extremely energy intensive to build and maintain and you're gonna have a hard time finding troops to send away once they know they don't ever get to come home. Any way you slice it wars take oil. It's why Hitler tried to take Siberia and much of the Middle Easy - he had no domestic supply. I know you're not real, but somehow I still need to say that you're glasses are dictating what your eyes see and they'r4e cutting off your peripheral vision. The future doesn't contain a prewritten history. It contains all possibilities.
Remote Observer
08-08-2007, 19:41
Nuclear arsenals are extrememly energy intensive to maintain. Ocean going fleets are extremely energy intensive to build and maintain and you're gonna have a hard time finding troops to send away once they know they don't ever get to come home. Any way you slice it wars take oil. It's why Hitler tried to take Siberia and much of the Middle Easy - he had no domestic supply. I know you're not real, but somehow I still need to say that you're glasses are dictating what your eyes see and they'r4e cutting off your peripheral vision. The future doesn't contain a prewritten history. It contains all possibilities.

Well, your vision is not one I discount. And if you have nukes, and they're unmaintainable, it might bring some nations to "use them or lose them".
Telesha
08-08-2007, 20:31
I agree, this is the article people should read. It's to the point: shit's going to happen, things are gonna change, here's an overview as opposed to "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" that I've been seeing a lot of.

Strap yourselves in, boys and girls. Make love to your lovers and prepare for the most interesting time in human history since WW2. Hope for the best, and plan for the worst. But always remember this: we might just be the generation that gets to brag in the afterlife "I died during the fall of mankind!"

How's that for a T-shirt slogan?
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 20:57
I agree, this is the article people should read. It's to the point: shit's going to happen, things are gonna change, here's an overview as opposed to "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" that I've been seeing a lot of.

Strap yourselves in, boys and girls. Make love to your lovers and prepare for the most interesting time in human history since WW2. Hope for the best, and plan for the worst. But always remember this: we might just be the generation that gets to brag in the afterlife "I died during the fall of mankind!"

How's that for a T-shirt slogan?

yeah, it depends on where you go.

We're all gonna die:

www.dieoff.org
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com

Sober energy discussions:

www.energybulletin.net
www.theoildrum.com

The oil drum tends to be very technical, though. You may need calculus because they tend to write their stories in it.
Andaluciae
08-08-2007, 20:59
Nazis.







Godwin!
Telesha
08-08-2007, 21:05
yeah, it depends on where you go.

We're all gonna die:

www.dieoff.org
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.com

Sober energy discussions:

www.energybulletin.net
www.theoildrum.com

The oil drum tends to be very technical, though. You may need calculus because they tend to write their stories in it.

I don't go to any of the sites anymore, I figure I know everything relevant, everything else is on me. Make no mistake, people are going to die and there's going to be chaos, but the sheer nihilism from dieoff and LATOC isn't going to help anything. It's for people who've given up.

Myself, I figure we've probably got about a year before things get really bad, after that...who knows? Things are going to get hairy, that's for sure. Maybe the aliens will finally reveal themselves and help us out, maybe we're wrong, maybe they'll be a breakthru, maybe we'll just nuke each other into non-existence. It's out of our hands, the doomers don't have a monopoly on the truth anymore than the rest of us.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 21:10
I don't go to any of the sites anymore, I figure I know everything relevant, everything else is on me. Make no mistake, people are going to die and there's going to be chaos, but the sheer nihilism from dieoff and LATOC isn't going to help anything. It's for people who've given up.

Myself, I figure we've probably got about a year before things get really bad, after that...who knows? Things are going to get hairy, that's for sure. Maybe the aliens will finally reveal themselves and help us out, maybe we're wrong, maybe they'll be a breakthru, maybe we'll just nuke each other into non-existence. It's out of our hands, the doomers don't have a monopoly on the truth anymore than the rest of us.

Whatever. I'm just trying to get my Harley to run on my own farts. Problem is that the tube keeps vibrating loose out of my ass. I'm gonna try this thing with a butplug and a hose and see if that works.
Telesha
08-08-2007, 21:17
Whatever. I'm just trying to get my Harley to run on my own farts. Problem is that the tube keeps vibrating loose out of my ass. I'm gonna try this thing with a butplug and a hose and see if that works.

Duct tape. Lots of duct tape.
PsychoticDan
08-08-2007, 21:20
Duct tape. Lots of duct tape.

I have a hairy ass. :(
Telesha
08-08-2007, 21:26
I have a hairy ass. :(

Even better! Free wax job!
Neo Undelia
08-08-2007, 21:39
Me shooting myself in the head.
FreedomAndGlory
09-08-2007, 00:48
Just build some nuclear power plants, big deal.
PsychoticDan
09-08-2007, 00:53
Just build some nuclear power plants, big deal.

Where are you going to get the uranium? The concrete and steel? How are you going to transport the materials? Nuclear power is an answer and we need it, but like everything that relies on oil - which is to say almost everything we take for granted - nuclear power, too, will become much more expensive.
Vetalia
09-08-2007, 00:53
I'm not that worried. Seeing as how almost all of the oil problem rests with light-duty transportation (the amount used in everything else is very small compared to the amount used as fuel for personal vehicles), the kind of advances currently in the works in mass transit, hybrids, conventional fuel economy and biofuels are a clear sign that we'll be able to offset a significant chunk of the problem without serious economic duress. Given the kind of demand destruction our economy managed in the late 1970's, I am confident we can do even more with the huge additional progress in alternatives made since then.

Of course, I could be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.
FreedomAndGlory
09-08-2007, 00:57
Where are you going to get the uranium?

There's uranium everywhere, including in fresh-water ponds; only the concentration differs. We are in no danger of running out of such a resource in the near future (several centuries).

The concrete and steel?

Are you serious? We don't have a severe shortage of either of those meterials.

How are you going to transport the materials?

Electric cars.
PsychoticDan
09-08-2007, 01:11
There's uranium everywhere, including in fresh-water ponds; only the concentration differs. We are in no danger of running out of such a resource in the near future (several centuries).



Are you serious? We don't have a severe shortage of either of those meterials.



Electric cars.

My point isn't that we are running out of those materials, it is that mining the ores, processing the materials, transporting the materials and building all the infrastructure are extremely oil dependent.
Vetalia
09-08-2007, 01:16
My point isn't that we are running out of those materials, it is that mining the ores, processing the materials, transporting the materials and building all the infrastructure are extremely oil dependent.

Yes, but the overall oil need for the actual mines is not that high; only 15% of all transportation fuel consumed is used in heavy machinery while the rest is used in light duty vehicles for personal transportation. That heavy machinery is extremely efficient in energy terms for the kind of work it does, and it runs mostly on high-sulfur diesel and residual oils, the low-grade stuff that can be produced pretty easily even from substandard deposits.

The biggest challenge in the supply chain is the workers that have to drive to the mines, construction sites, and warehouses.
PsychoticDan
09-08-2007, 01:34
Noe of that helps with cost increases across the board. Oil isn't only becoming more expensive for light duty vehicles.

Also, as you and I have argued about before, the implementation of these technologies take a LOT of time. We're not going to wake up tomorrow and everyone's gonna have a prius in their driveways. For example, they are talking about building a rail line between here in Hollywood and the West Side. In fact, they've been talking about it for 10 years. They can't decide how to do it and they haven't even broken ground. There are political realizties to deal with to because Beverly Hills doesn't want a noisy train rolling through their neighborhood. Mass transit is great, but it takes a long time to get these things done - on the order of decades. There was very little opposition to the Redline out here and it 15 years to finish that. Also, I still owe 17,000 on my Harley so I can't afford a new hybrid right now. Not to mention something like 90 barrels of oil goes into the construction of one car. Who's gonne build all those new cars to replace the 700,000,000 on the road now? As they become prgressively more expensive due to the increase in teh cost of the materials and energy used in making them will the middle class be priced out of the market? Will Paris Hilton still be rich when middle class people can no longer afford to drive or fly to places and stay in her hotels? What happens to the maids and cashiers and waiters who work in her hotels?

The demand destruction you talk about in the 70's and 80's happened not because everyone switched to new vehicles, it happened because of serious recession and stagflation. You have no idea what would have happened had the drop in oil production continued unabated back then. The fact is that the oil embargo ended and Alaska and the North Sea came online. Had those two things not occured you and I would be living in a very different world.

And workers don't just have to drive to the mines, construction sites ans warehouses. they also have to drive to the offices, restaurants, museums, theme parks, movie theaters, post production houses, Harley dealerships, docks, farms, supermarkets, trading floors, taco stands, casinos, whore houses and all the other places that provide jobs for people and whos customers are responsible for keeping the economy working the way we have become accustomed to.

We're not just going to wake up tomorrow and everyone's going to have a technological miracle parked in their drive way.

Biofules, by the way - not even the people growing them, their biggest proponents, expect them to make up more than a small fraction of the total liquid fuels needed to power our transportation systems in the future - even the far future.
Vetalia
09-08-2007, 01:48
90 barrels per car? Where? I think the only oil used in automobile manufacturing is for the plastics and maybe some machinery, but almost all of the energy comes from electricity provided by natural gas, coal, or nuclear. Even so, 90 barrels per car is 63 billion barrels; even in a post peak environment, we would have enough oil to overturn the world fleet.

In regard to technological adoption, the turnover time for the US car fleet is roughly 16 years. So, if we have a 2% decline in oil supplies per year, we would need to boost fuel economy by 62% over that same period in order to offset that decline. We achieved a 50% increase in 10 years when CAFE was implemented, and that was with collapsing oil prices and a severe recession caused by a sudden 10% drop in oil supplies.

And biofuels are a wildcard, really, one that hinges on the way they are produced. Crop based fuels are a dead end that will get us nowhere, obviously, but technologies such as cellulosic ethanol and even perennialized food crops can cause huge changes in the potential role of biofuels. Nobody has a good idea of how big a role they'll play, although apparently they're of enough concern for OPEC to try to intimidate energy consuming nations about them.

But these are all relative and hinge on oil prices remaining on a stable uptrend rather than blowing up in a 1970's style oil crisis. Obviously, severe weather or massive instability in an oil producing country could trigger a meltdown in the market. There are a lot of factors out there that could go one way or another; by and large, of course, the later the peak, the better.
PsychoticDan
09-08-2007, 01:58
90 barrels per car? Where? I think the only oil used in automobile manufacturing is for the plastics and maybe some machinery, but almost all of the energy comes from electricity provided by natural gas, coal, or nuclear. Even so, 90 barrels per car is 63 billion barrels; even in a post peak environment, we would have enough oil to overturn the world fleet.

In regard to technological adoption, the turnover time for the US car fleet is roughly 16 years. So, if we have a 2% decline in oil supplies per year, we would need to boost fuel economy by 62% over that same period in order to offset that decline. We achieved a 50% increase in 10 years when CAFE was implemented, and that was with collapsing oil prices and a severe recession caused by a sudden 10% drop in oil supplies.

And biofuels are a wildcard, really, one that hinges on the way they are produced. Crop based fuels are a dead end that will get us nowhere, obviously, but technologies such as cellulosic ethanol and even perennialized food crops can cause huge changes in the potential role of biofuels. Nobody has a good idea of how big a role they'll play, although apparently they're of enough concern for OPEC to try to intimidate energy consuming nations about them.

But these are all relative and hinge on oil prices remaining on a stable uptrend rather than blowing up in a 1970's style oil crisis. Obviously, severe weather or massive instability in an oil producing country could trigger a meltdown in the market. There are a lot of factors out there that could go one way or another; by and large, of course, the later the peak, the better.

Oil is used in a lot more ways than just creating plastic. It takes oil to run fatories to produce car parts. It takes oil to ship those parts from China. It akes oil to mine inron ore and smelt it into steal, etc...

Also, a 2% decline is a best case scenario and I think you'll find it much steeper than that. You also have to realize that producing countries are using more and more of their own supplies so a 2% decline doesn't necessarily, in fact probably doesn't mean only a 2% decline in US imports. If something in Mexico, cuurently our 3rd largest supplier down from 1st just a few yeasr ago, doesn't change fast they will cease to be an exporter at all. England just left the exporter list last year and more exporters are following yearly.

AS far as when it will occur, as of right now it already has. The peak of conventional liquids was March of 05 and the peak in total liquids was December of 05 so if something big doesn't come online soon 2005 will be remembered as the year of Peak Oil.

Gotta go. Off work.
Walker-Texas-Ranger
09-08-2007, 02:27
What's a Stane Age? :p I've heard of Stone, but Stane?


A world bereft of Oxi Clean(tm) and spell-check.
Minaris
09-08-2007, 05:29
A world bereft of Oxi Clean(tm) and spell-check.

Ah, i see. Surely no lack of sauce, dirt, and ink, though.
Vetalia
09-08-2007, 05:32
Ah, i see. Surely no lack of sauce, dirt, and ink, though.

Or red wine!
Minaris
09-08-2007, 05:49
Or red wine!

White, on the other hand...