FAQ
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:25 pm


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:35 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
i recently read a bit about peak oil, and the one consensus that comes across is that we just don't know : actual reserves are being lied about to protect allocated quota, existing reserves are being held back to protect price structures, some reserves are only economically viable to extract if the price is right, there may be alternatives waiting in the wings to take over from the traditional sources

with so much confusion it's not surprising there's no consensus on whether peak oil has been reached or not

tbh, what really matters is at what price the oil is available and who can afford it, which more of an economic rather than a geological issue

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:55 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
It's also a geopolitical issue. If we can get oil from Canadian tar sands and fracked shale oil from inside the city limits of American cities then that will teach those nasty Arabs and Venezuelans a lesson.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:09 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
don't really know how shale oil compares in price or cost with the arab version

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2013 10:00 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
I think it's about more than prices and politics. I cannot even think of oil anymore without thinking how stupid we're being with our climate.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:02 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
i've already resigned myself to the fact that we're going to overshoot the 2°C increase by a mile
plans need to be made how to adapt to the greenhouse world

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:55 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Yes, me too. Back to your original question, though, it may be more on-topic for me to say that I don't even think we should be worrying about peak oil. Perhaps we've already passed, perhaps it's still somewhere in the future, but I think it's the wrong question. I don't care where we are in relation to peak oil. I care that we haven't yet seemed to grasp the seriousness of our condition and take appropriate steps to more robustly adapt as a species.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 7:59 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Quote:
peak oil - does it matter ?

Yes.

I am so happy to see that you have finally come up with such an interesting topic. This one happens to be a real favorite of mine.:D

marnixR wrote:
i recently read a bit about peak oil, and the one consensus that comes across is that we just don't know : actual reserves are being lied about to protect allocated quota, existing reserves are being held back to protect price structures, some reserves are only economically viable to extract if the price is right, there may be alternatives waiting in the wings to take over from the traditional sources

with so much confusion it's not surprising there's no consensus on whether peak oil has been reached or not

They also used to say that we just can't prove that cigarettes cause cancer.

There is not as much confusion on peak oil as you seem to think there is. There certainly doesn't have to be. I'm pretty up to date on everything peak oil related. Maybe I could help to clear up some of the confusion. For example:

marnixR wrote:
don't really know how shale oil compares in price or cost with the arab version

Shale oil, or tight oil, as it is also called, is much more expensive to produce than current arab production.

marnixR wrote:
tbh, what really matters is at what price the oil is available and who can afford it, which more of an economic rather than a geological issue

To be fully understood, it has to be seen as both.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:34 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
still, if shale gas and oil from fracking takes off the way it appears to do, then the availability or non-availability of traditional oil sources becomes far less of an issue

also don't forget that the next replacement fuel could be methane hydrates - Japan appear to be serious about it, and if it takes off in the countries where it can be mined in abundance it could not only change the geopolitics of oil / gas but make peak oil an irrelevance

Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

it would, however, not make much of a difference for containing CO2 levels as well as global warming at acceptable levels

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 6:38 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
still, if shale gas and oil from fracking takes off the way it appears to do,...

There are very good reasons to doubt that tight oil production is all it is fracked up to be:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy- ... shocks/375

Quote:
Energy independence, or impending oil shocks?

A deluge of recent articles have asserted that the U.S. is on its way to energy independence thanks to the miracle of shale oil, or “tight oil.” (Shale oil is actual crude oil produced from tight shale formations like the Bakken. Tight oil is a broader term including shale oil and natural gas liquids produced from shale gas plays. Horizontal drilling and “fracking” are used in both kinds of shale production.) None of them, however, have demonstrated how we would get there.
...
The tight oil treadmill

The poster child for the tight oil ‘miracle’ is the Bakken play centered in North Dakota. Its production has gone from almost nothing a few years ago to over half a million barrels per day. We’re getting another 0.083* mbpd from the Eagle Ford Shale according to the Texas Railroad Commission, the state’s official oil-reporting agency. But that’s where the data trail runs dry. As I have reported previously, data from state agencies outside Texas is spotty at best, and the EIA does not offer detailed production data for tight oil at all. The EIA estimates overall U.S. tight oil production in 2011 at 0.54 mbpd, but I have seen other estimates (without the data to prove it) as high as 0.9 mbpd.

When the data runs dry, my go-to guy is French petroleum engineer Jean Laherrère, who maintains a detailed database from both public and private sources. He offered this chart of Bakken production in North Dakota:

Image

It tells the real story of tight oil production beautifully. Each well produces a mere 150 barrels or so per day on average, and like shale gas wells, their output declines rapidly after initial production. As LeVine learned from a Bakken executive, the decline rate can be over 90 percent in the first year, then gradually tapers off. After seven or eight years, wells will have produced over 60 percent of their recoverable reserves. Therefore, you have to keep drilling like hell just to maintain production, and drill even more to increase it. Per LeVine’s source, “if the rate of drilling stays constant for a long time, the growth rate of field production will decrease, then plateau, then begin to drop.” But at around $7 million per well, these wells are not cheap.

As Laherrère’s chart shows, it takes about 1,200 wells to increase production by 150 thousand barrels a day on the Bakken tight oil treadmill. Compare that to the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, where a single gusher can produce 250 thousand barrels per day. By this metric it would take another 16,000 Bakken wells to achieve Citigroup’s projection of an additional 2 mbpd from shale oil, or five times the existing 3,200 Bakken wells.

Initial production rates from the next-biggest shale oil producer, the Eagle Ford play, appear to be substantially higher at around 350 barrels per day (including both oil and gas) over the first month, but then they decline to less than 100 barrels per day over the first year. The costs in the Eagle Ford are also substantially higher: as much as $10 million per well. Fracking the Eagle Ford is also challenged by the enormous requirements for water, an increasingly scarce resource in drought-ravaged Texas.
...
Meanwhile, the treadmill continues to speed up. As Patzek notes, incremental new oil production per rig in the U.S. was about 1,000 to 1,500 barrels per day in 2005. In 2011, it was one-tenth that, at 100 barrels. The story of energy independence is just that: a story. The data tells us that we are losing the race against depletion, oil shortages are in our near future, and we had better plan as individuals to confront the impending oil shocks."

It should be noted that all of the recent rise in oil production for the whole world has been completely due to intensive production of US tight oil:

Image

Mean while, depletion rates for existing production of conventional crude continue to accelerate. Geologists expect that rate to ultimately be around 7%. Right now, tight oil production is the only thing that is keeping world oil production growth positive. So if tight oil fails to live up to expectations, we could be in big trouble.

marnixR wrote:
...then the availability or non-availability of traditional oil sources becomes far less of an issue

The absolute availability or non-availability of oil is not really the problem. The real issue is the price. Conventional crude oil production peaked in 2005 and has been in decline ever since. As we start to run out of cheap conventional oil, we have to replace that production with more expensive alternatives like tight oil. But high oil prices are a constant drag on the economy.

Since the peak of conventional crude oil production in 2005, the rate of growth of world oil production has slowed dramatically:

Image

And the world economy has slowed as a result:

Image
Gross World Product (trillion US$)

marnixR wrote:
also don't forget that the next replacement fuel could be methane hydrates - Japan appear to be serious about it, and if it takes off in the countries where it can be mined in abundance it could not only change the geopolitics of oil / gas but make peak oil an irrelevance

I suppose methane hydrate production must have some potential or Japan wouldn't be trying it. But it is likely to be quite expensive, so it won't solve the price problem.

marnixR wrote:
it would, however, not make much of a difference for containing CO2 levels as well as global warming at acceptable levels

I agree.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:41 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
in the nearly 20 years i've been driving a car in the UK diesel prices have increased nearly 3-fold
so far it hasn't really broken the bank, and although nowadays using my car costs me about £200 a month, everything else has increased as well, including my take-home pay

so, even if traditional oil gets more expensive, the other carbon sources are there to keep it under control : if the price for traditional crude goes up too much, so the volume for the more expensive alternatives is likely to increase

always remember the lesson from the Club of Rome where various ores were thought to go depleted in our lifetimes : an ore is a mineral body that can be economically mined - likewise for carbon sources, if the price goes up, sources that originally were too costly become available for exploitation

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:07 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
in the nearly 20 years i've been driving a car in the UK diesel prices have increased nearly 3-fold
so far it hasn't really broken the bank, and although nowadays using my car costs me about £200 a month, everything else has increased as well, including my take-home pay

so, even if traditional oil gets more expensive, the other carbon sources are there to keep it under control : if the price for traditional crude goes up too much, so the volume for the more expensive alternatives is likely to increase

always remember the lesson from the Club of Rome where various ores were thought to go depleted in our lifetimes : an ore is a mineral body that can be economically mined - likewise for carbon sources, if the price goes up, sources that originally were too costly become available for exploitation

The trouble is the rising price of the energy necessary to do the work of maintaining our civilization. The economy functions very well on cheap oil. So far, as we have entered the era of more expensive oil, the economy has started to slow down considerably, as predicted by peak oil theory. Growth in World Gross Product has pretty much flatlined since the world peak of conventional crude oil in 2005. There is very good reason to expect the all liquids fuels peak very soon, after which production will go into permanent decline.

http://www.nafeezahmed.com/2013/06/shoc ... eport.html

Quote:
Rising energy prices will challenge western way of life – MoD report

A little-known Ministry of Defence (MoD) report published earlier this year warns that converging global trends will dramatically affect UK economic prosperity through to 2040.

The report says that depletion of cheap conventional "easy oil", along with shortages of food and water due to climate change and population growth, will sustain rocketing energy prices. Long-term price spikes are likely to lead to a long recession in Western economies, fuelling internal unrest and the rise of nationalist movements.

The report departs significantly from the conservative and relatively optimistic scenarios officially adopted by the British government, as exemplified in the coalition's new Energy Security Strategy published in November last year by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).

PEAK "EASY OIL"

The report predicts that "the imminent passing of the point of peak 'easy oil' will mean that hydrocarbon-based energy prices will rise significantly out to 2040." Other factors affecting energy prices include "increasing demand for fossil fuels" due to South Asia's "industrial rise" and greater "volatility in supply" in the Middle East.

Contradicting the British government's official position on peak oil - which accepts the International Energy Agency's (IEA) latest estimate that oil prices will reach "$125/barrel in real terms (over $215/barrel in nominal terms)" - the MoD report projects an exponential escalation in prices, such that "the increasing price of oil... is likely to reach $500 a barrel by 2040" - almost double conventional projections.
...
END OF GROWTH DUE TO RESOURCE PRICE SPIKES?

But the West faces other parallel challenges:

"The growth of South Asian economies will impact on most western nations, where the way of life for the majority of the populaces may be challenged by rising energy and resource prices, coupled with a relative decline in the value of their national economies...

The economic and industrial rise of China and India will increase the cost and reduce the availability of UK energy supplies. As a resource-importing nation, and with relatively modest fossil fuel reserves, the UK will be affected by increased resource and commodity costs. The UK will increasingly need to compete with China and India in order to secure enduring access to energy."

Consequently, the report argues that the "western 'way of life'" - associated with "a wide variety of consumer choice and relatively cheap energy" - will be "increasingly challenged as lifestyles follow GDP levels and 'normalise' across the globe."

Within the US and UK, the bulk of the populations will be affected by:

"... rising energy and resource prices, and the declining availability of finance to sustain discretionary spending. In such a context, this could lead to periods of sustained recession in the West, causing increasingly protectionist policies to be adopted."

"INTERNAL UNREST"

This could occur even as growth continues in South Asia, with global GDP per capita overall levelling off to "equilibrate", culminating in "the stalling and subsequent decline of many western economies." This will result in:

"long periods of recession and rising disaffection within the UK population... This could subsequently lead to increased incidents of internal unrest, a rise of nationalistic groups and a demand for protectionist economic and defence policies."

Our ability to adapt is not limitless.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:21 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Our ability to adapt is not limitless.


that may well be the case, but since at least 2 feasible alternatives are there, it doesn't exactly push the limits of what we can do right now

there's even a 3rd alternative, which is the coal-to-oil conversion of the Sasol process, which helped South Africa quite nicely in the apartheid days

so in all, there are options, and they are available (or will soon be) to take up the slack purely based on the crude oil price - hence peak oil, while real enough, may still be a red herring when it comes to the economy

after all, when wood started running out at the start of the Industrial Revolution, the economy switched to coal without so much as a whimper - i don't see why it couldn't be likewise for oil

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:43 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Unfortunately coal to liquids has a much higher greenhouse gas impact than just burning oil.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:53 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Our ability to adapt is not limitless.


that may well be the case, but since at least 2 feasible alternatives are there, it doesn't exactly push the limits of what we can do right now

there's even a 3rd alternative, which is the coal-to-oil conversion of the Sasol process, which helped South Africa quite nicely in the apartheid days

so in all, there are options, and they are available (or will soon be) to take up the slack purely based on the crude oil price - hence peak oil, while real enough, may still be a red herring when it comes to the economy

after all, when wood started running out at the start of the Industrial Revolution, the economy switched to coal without so much as a whimper - i don't see why it couldn't be likewise for oil


The reason it can't be likewise for oil is that when the economy switched from wood to coal, it meant an overall increase in the amount of energy available. When we switched from coal to oil, it also meant another step up in terms of total energy available. This time we have to switch to power sources that add up to a step down in the total amount of energy available. That kind of transition has never happened in the entire 10,000 year history of civilization.

Alternatives may be able to take up some of the slack today, but very soon the world will face long term depletion of liquid fuels. The expected maximum depletion rate is estimated to be about 7% per year. That will increase the cost of oil very dramatically. Although this might theoretically make some expensive alternatives viable, the overall cost will be far too much for the economy to continue to function. Like I said before, growth of the World Gross Product has been flat since about 2005, and overall oil production is still rising, though only very slowly. When liquid fuels production begins to drop, we will be in big trouble.

Besides, replacing oil with coal will send the climate straight to hell.

Also, what do you think of the British government report I posted? They think we will see the all liquids peak very soon, and they predict some pretty bad problems as a result. Why would they write such a thing if there is nothing to worry about like you say?

---Futilitist:cool:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
as for the government report : i work in the steel industry, and i know first-hand what the China effect means for raw materials + i can easily appreciate that something similar may happen to oil or any other oil products that we don't have a local supply of

let's face it : the west is economically in decline whatever happens in the world
e.g. last year the steel industry worldwide grew again after the recent stagnation - trouble is, the increase did not happen in Europe, and imports for china and south-east asia have never been more significant

hence the UK is on a downward slope in industrial output independent of peak oil

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:22 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
Manufacturing in the US is on something of a rebound because low wage economies around the world are gradually seeing wages increase and the cost of transport of goods is also increasing due to wages and oil price. The big three car manufacturers are hiring workers and putting on extra shifts.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:39 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
+ you're more ready to slap on tariffs on whatever import you deem to be unfair

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:58 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
hence the UK is on a downward slope in industrial output independent of peak oil

The downward slope of industrial output in the UK is hardly independent of peak oil. North Sea oil production has been in decline since 1999:

Image

Also, here is some more government confirmation that peak oil really does matter:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ocks-nsa-prism

Quote:
Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks

Top secret US National Security Agency (NSA) documents disclosed by the Guardian have shocked the world with revelations of a comprehensive US-based surveillance system with direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants. New Zealand court records suggest that data harvested by the NSA's Prism system has been fed into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance whose members also include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis - or all three.
...
The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015:

"A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."

That year the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, while recognising that "climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."

Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of "large scale economic breakdown" in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain "domestic order amid civil unrest."

The US, the British, and the German governments and militaries have all done reports suggesting that oil supplies will begin to decline by 2015. That doesn't give us much time to adapt, does it?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 4:01 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The US, the British, and the German governments and militaries have all done reports suggesting that oil supplies will begin to decline by 2015.

This is hardly some mind-blowing or surprising prediction. Oil supplies have been declining since the first day we learned how to extract them, and have done so continually ever since as our extraction volume and frequency have both increased. The decline will not "begin" in 2015. It began long ago.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:53 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
marnixR wrote:
hence the UK is on a downward slope in industrial output independent of peak oil

The downward slope of industrial output in the UK is hardly independent of peak oil. North Sea oil production has been in decline since 1999


the industrial decline in the steel industry is pretty independent of crude oil - our main raw material costs are coal and iron ore
in essence the steel industry in europe is in a squeeze between rising raw material prices and prices received for steel products that steadfastly refuse to budge

hence the decline of that part of the UK industry is purely down to cheaper production costs in asia and massive penetration into our home markets

if north sea oil had remained at its early 1990s level it might have made a difference for the overall GDP of the UK, but it wouldn't have helped the steel industry one iota

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:06 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The US, the British, and the German governments and militaries have all done reports suggesting that oil supplies will begin to decline by 2015.

This is hardly some mind-blowing or surprising prediction. Oil supplies have been declining since the first day we learned how to extract them, and have done so continually ever since as our extraction volume and frequency have both increased. The decline will not "begin" in 2015. It began long ago.

I'm sure you must be aware that "supply" here refers to the oil supply available to the world oil market on a daily basis, and not to oil inventories in the ground. It feels a little like you are trying to confuse the two. Obviously, the various defense departments and governments of the world did not issue dire warnings about a decline in the earth's total oil endowment that began long ago. Why would they? They did, however, issue a specific warning about a decline in daily total world oil production that they expect begin by 2015.

The important thing is the oil extraction rate, which is about to go into long term, irreversible decline. That means, from 2015 on, that the world will have to get by on less and less oil every day. Oil depletion rates are expected to reach 7% annually. That means that each year the world will have 7% less oil available than they did the year before.

The various government and military reports forecast that world total daily oil production will begin to decline by 2015. That is a very big deal.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:48 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
I guess my point was too obvious for you to understand it. Oh well. So there's no confusion, I think we should be "getting by" on essentially zero oil already today (save for the petroleum products that feed plastics, and the like), and I also believe we could do so given existing technology (with a bit of front end investment).


Futilitist wrote:
I'm sure you must be aware that "supply" here refers to the oil supply available to the world oil market on a daily basis, and not to oil inventories in the ground.

You should be sure of no such thing. Daily supply is an upward and downward moving target, and is dynamic by the hour. We replenish some from the ground each day, and we also use that which has been extracted each day. It's like a bucket being filled with drops of water from the top while simultaneously leaking drops of water from the bottom. The relevant bit when discussing supply is the water entering from the top.

Now, you might argue that we as a culture are using more each day than we're extracting, and that this has been the trend for some time, but that's not the same as arguing about a dwindling "supply," which IMO should relate specifically to what's available in the ground.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:44 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
I guess my point was too obvious for you to understand it. Oh well.

That sounds vaguely insulting, iNow. I don't know why you always feel the need to be so abrasive toward me.

Your point was not too obvious for me to understand. You stated it quite clearly:

iNow wrote:
This is hardly some mind-blowing or surprising prediction. Oil supplies have been declining since the first day we learned how to extract them, and have done so continually ever since as our extraction volume and frequency have both increased. The decline will not "begin" in 2015. It began long ago.

You are now saying something completely different:

iNow wrote:
So there's no confusion, I think we should be "getting by" on essentially zero oil already today (save for the petroleum products that feed plastics, and the like), and I also believe we could do so given existing technology (with a bit of front end investment).

There is no confusion. The two statements are not even related. How could anyone possibly derive the contents of your second statement by reading your first statement?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:46 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
There is no confusion.

Good to hear.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:19 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
There is no confusion.

Good to hear.

Yes, I am also glad we cleared that up.

iNow, this thread is entitled, "peak oil - does it matter?". Are you saying that it doesn't?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:04 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
I've already contributed my answer to that question.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 5:42 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
I've already contributed my answer to that question.

I thought this was a discussion forum. Are you refusing to discuss your answer further?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:08 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist there's no obligation on iNow's part to continue a discussions he doesn't wish to pursue
on a related note, i notice that you haven't addressed my post at all (the essence of it being the drop off of north sea oil output and the economic decline of the UK may just be coincidental, as exemplified by one of the few major industries still operating in the UK)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:11 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
I'm sure you must be aware that "supply" here refers to the oil supply available to the world oil market on a daily basis, and not to oil inventories in the ground.

iNow wrote:
You should be sure of no such thing. Daily supply is an upward and downward moving target, and is dynamic by the hour. We replenish some from the ground each day, and we also use that which has been extracted each day. It's like a bucket being filled with drops of water from the top while simultaneously leaking drops of water from the bottom. The relevant bit when discussing supply is the water entering from the top.

Now, you might argue that we as a culture are using more each day than we're extracting, and that this has been the trend for some time, but that's not the same as arguing about a dwindling "supply," which IMO should relate specifically to what's available in the ground.

You seem to have added some to this post since I answered it before.

Let me make this clear so that the readers are not confused. The US Department of Defense report cited in the article forecasts a decline in the total daily amount of oil being produced by the world by 2015. That means that the amount of oil available to the world oil market every day will begin declining and continue to decline relentlessly, up to a decline rate of perhaps 7% per year, until there is no more economically viable oil left to be produced in the world. Oil is about to get a lot more expensive.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:24 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
shall we try and revisit this some time in 2016/2017 + see if the forecasts were on the mark or not ?
forecasts have been wrong before, especially if they're of the "if this goes on" variety

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:00 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist there's no obligation on iNow's part to continue a discussions he doesn't wish to pursue

True.

marnixR wrote:
on a related note, i notice that you haven't addressed my post at all (the essence of it being the drop off of north sea oil output and the economic decline of the UK may just be coincidental, as exemplified by one of the few major industries still operating in the UK)

I am also under no obligation to answer your post. But since I don't want to appear rude like some people, I will answer you. I was going to anyway, but I was busy wasting my time trying to converse with iNow.

The answer is no, the economic decline of the UK is not just coincidental. Peak oil has effected the UK recently in two major ways. North Sea oil production began to decline in 1999. That meant that the UK had to start importing more expensive oil. Then, starting around 2003, the world price of oil began to spike. The economy is very sensitive to the price of oil. When oil prices rises too fast and too high, the cost comes out of the rest of the economy. How could it be otherwise?

The entire world economy has been stagnant since 2005 when the production of conventional crude oil peaked. Are you suggesting that this economic downturn also has nothing to do with peak oil?

marnixR wrote:
shall we try and revisit this some time in 2016/2017 + see if the forecasts were on the mark or not ?
forecasts have been wrong before, especially if they're of the "if this goes on" variety

The permanent decline in world oil production is very close at hand no matter what. We are getting closer to that moment every day. Even if the 2015 forecast is off by a year or two, it won't make much difference. Unless there is some kind of miracle, the price of oil is about to start rising dramatically, and keep rising from that point on. From 2003-2008, oil prices rose about 500%. The world economy, which was relatively healthy up till that time, went flat and continues to stagnate. This time around, with an already bad economy, already high oil prices will just get higher and higher. How can we possibly adapt?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:21 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The entire world economy has been stagnant since 2005 when the production of conventional crude oil peaked. Are you suggesting that this economic downturn also has nothing to do with peak oil?


really - how abut China then ? apart from a short period in 2008/2009 china has been growing at a pace that has affected the westeren economies adversely, not only by diverting raw materials (including oil) to its manufacturing processes, but more recently by becoming a nett exporter into the western markets and undercutting the producers there so that their margins decrease to the point where many become unprofitable

you see ? oil may play a part in what's going on, but the overall picture is far more complex, and therein oil is only one of many cogs

imo what we see in western europe is dominated by the china affect, with only a small superposed effect of relative oil scarcity - in short, by singling out peak oil to try and explain everything, you're overstating your case

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The entire world economy has been stagnant since 2005 when the production of conventional crude oil peaked. Are you suggesting that this economic downturn also has nothing to do with peak oil?


really - how abut China then ? apart from a short period in 2008/2009 china has been growing at a pace that has affected the westeren economies adversely, not only by diverting raw materials (including oil) to its manufacturing processes, but more recently by becoming a nett exporter into the western markets and undercutting the producers there so that their margins decrease to the point where many become unprofitable

you see ? oil may play a part in what's going on, but the overall picture is far more complex, and therein oil is only one of many cogs

imo what we see in western europe is dominated by the china affect, with only a small superposed effect of relative oil scarcity - in short, by singling out peak oil to try and explain everything, you're overstating your case

The available energy supply is what determines everything for our species.

Quote:
World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45 %/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64 %/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33 %/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

---Richard Duncan


Image

The graph above shows the exponential rise of energy per capita over the last 12,000 years up to 1900.

Image

In the graph above we see a closer view, from 1850 till 2000. Notice that global oil use per capita largely determines total global energy use per capita. That is because oil is such a dense energy source. Nothing can match it in terms bang for the buck. Alternatives simply cannot make up the difference when oil depletion rates begin to accelerate after 2015.

It is also interesting to note the slowdown in the growth of energy per capita from 1910 until around 1950. That little wobble in the rise of energy per capita resulted in World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II. Civilization is very sensitive to energy, and energy supplies must constantly grow or collapse will eventually result.

Image

Although world energy per capita has begun to increase again recently, this has been entirely due to very rapid recent growth in China, which has begun to slow down considerably. The world population is growing faster than the energy supply. And the energy supply is about to go into permanent decline.

Image

This graph shows world population overlaid with world energy per capita. The population growth rate began to slow at exactly the same time as the temporary peak of energy per capita in 1978.

Long term oil depletion begins by 2015, with maximum depletion rates eventually reaching about 7% per year. Year after year. The price of oil will skyrocket. The already weak, debt ridden economy will simply fail. What goes up, must come down.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:27 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The available energy supply is what determines everything for our species.


don't you see that your statement is too general ? we've gone for oil as our main supplier of energy because it was readily available and relatively cheap to extract - once it becomes harder to extract, the world will switch to other energy sources

that was the whole point of the OP : new energy sources may well take the sting out of peak oil
and let's not forget that when it comes to the crunch, nuclear may well make a reappearance (with or without fusion)

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:36 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The available energy supply is what determines everything for our species.

marnixR wrote:
don't you see that your statement is too general ?

No, my statement is not too general. It is true. And very well supported by the David Price paper:

http://www.jayhanson.us/page137.htm

Quote:
Energy and Human Evolution

Life on Earth is driven by energy. Autotrophs take it from solar radiation and heterotrophs take it from autotrophs. Energy captured slowly by photosynthesis is stored up, and as denser reservoirs of energy have come into being over the course of Earth's history, heterotrophs that could use more energy evolved to exploit them, Homo sapiens is such a heterotroph; indeed, the ability to use energy extrasomatically (outside the body) enables human beings to use far more energy than any other heterotroph that has ever evolved. The control of fire and the exploitation of fossil fuels have made it possible for Homo sapiens to release, in a short time, vast amounts of energy that accumulated long before the species appeared.

By using extrasomatic energy to modify more and more of its environment to suit human needs, the human population effectively expanded its resource base so that for long periods it has exceeded contemporary requirements. This allowed an expansion of population similar to that of species introduced into extremely, propitious new habitats, such as rabbits in Australia or Japanese beetles in the United States. The world's present population of over 5.5 billion is sustained and continues to grow through the use of extrasomatic energy.

But the exhaustion of fossil fuels, which supply three quarters of this energy, is not far off, and no other energy source is abundant and cheap enough to take their place. A collapse of the earth's human population cannot be more than a few years away. If there are survivors, they will not be able to carry on the cultural traditions of civilization, which require abundant, cheap energy. It is unlikely, however, that the species itself can long persist without the energy whose exploitation is so much a part of its modus vivendi.

The human species may be seen as having evolved in the service of entropy, and it cannot be expected to outlast the dense accumulations of energy that have helped define its niche. Human beings like to believe they are in control of their destiny, but when the history of life on Earth is seen in perspective, the evolution of Homo sapiens is merely a transient episode that acts to redress the planet's energy balance.

And besides, there is no rule in science that makes general statements automatically invalid. All living things on earth evolved. That is both a general statement and scientifically true at the same time.

Image

Do you think that the correlation of the inflection of the energy per capita curve (from 1910 till about 1950) with World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II was just a coincidence?

Image
Image
World Gross Product (trillion US$)

World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and overall oil production has only grown by .2% since. The world economy has been totally stagnant during that same period. Coincidence?

Energy per capita began to decline in 1978, the very same year that world population growth began to slow. Coincidence?

marnixR wrote:
we've gone for oil as our main supplier of energy because it was readily available and relatively cheap to extract - once it becomes harder to extract, the world will switch to other energy sources

As oil has gotten harder to extract, the price has risen. The alternatives are economically viable only because the price of oil is so high. So, alternatives simply cannot solve the dilemma.

marnixR wrote:
that was the whole point of the OP : new energy sources may well take the sting out of peak oil
and let's not forget that when it comes to the crunch, nuclear may well make a reappearance (with or without fusion)

If the whole point of the OP is that new energy sources may well take the sting out of peak oil, then we need to evaluate that possibility realistically, based on the facts we know. That means realistically accounting for the potential severity of the situation, and using forecasts that give a realistic timeline for the problems we face. You are basically ignoring both.

Alternatives are already taking some of the sting out of peak oil. And we are adapting as fast as possible already. But the peak oil problem is really just getting started, and it is about to get much, much worse. The "crunch" you talk about is almost upon us. If the DoD forecast is correct, permanent oil depletion begins by 2015, less than two years from now. That will cause price shocks that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park. Under those emergency type conditions, the world will not have the time nor the resources available to usefully switch to alternatives. And nuclear will not make an appearance* because nuclear plants are too expensive and take too long to construct. Once world oil production goes into irreversible, long term depletion, the economy will crash, and the switch to alternatives will be over forever, at least as far as civilization is concerned.

If you accept that peak oil is a real problem, then you must account for that problem completely and realistically when evaluating possible solutions. Let's do a thorough evaluation together and see where it leads, okay?

---Futilitist :ugeek:

*note---Nuclear may make an appearance in the near future, but it will be in the form of thermonuclear warheads instead of power plants.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:25 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
No, my statement is not too general. It is true.


i'm sorry, but a statement that's true everywhere and anywhere becomes tautological, and therefore meaningless

i also disagree with the statement "fossils fuels are running out" as being too general - as the OP said, certain fossils fuels are running out such as traditional oil, but gas isn't, coal isn't and methane hydrates, if their extraction proves feasible, hasn't even started

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:56 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
No, my statement is not too general. It is true.


i'm sorry, but a statement that's true everywhere and anywhere becomes tautological, and therefore meaningless

Fine. But this is just a small semantic disagreement. It makes no difference to my overall argument whether you accept the particular wording I use to express myself on this. My point is that energy is much more important to determining our history and our destiny than most people comprehend. And that is a big problem that keeps people from understanding how serious a dilemma we are in. When people don't understand the fundamental importance of energy in the first place, they have a hard time understanding what will happen to us when energy supplies run short.

You did not react to these questions:

Image

1. Do you think that the correlation of the inflection of the energy per capita curve (from 1910 till about 1950) with World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II was just a coincidence?

2. World population growth began to slow in 1978. Energy per capita also began to decline in 1978, the very same year. Coincidence?

3. World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and overall oil production has grown by only .2% since. The world economy has been totally stagnant during that same period. Coincidence?

When energy supplies are plentiful, times are good. When energy supplies are not plentiful, times are bad. It really is pretty much that simple. If this simple, yet elegant insight is true, it helps explain our history in a way that actually makes sense. It helps explain the rise of despots, and world wars. It helps explain the ups and downs of the economy. It gives us the ability to see ahead (even if we might not like what we see).

Science is about understanding the fundamental patterns in nature around us, seeing the forest despite the trees. If my conception of the fundamental importance of energy to our species explains so much and fits the data so well, why do you reject it out of hand?

marnixR wrote:
i also disagree with the statement "fossils fuels are running out" as being too general...

As far as total net energy is concerned, they are about to be running out. When oil production enters irreversible depletion (around 2015), world total net energy will begin to decline. All of the alternatives put together cannot make up the difference.

marnixR wrote:
... - as the OP said, certain fossils fuels are running out such as traditional oil, but gas isn't, coal isn't and methane hydrates, if their extraction proves feasible, hasn't even started

Natural gas is cheap now, but it won't be when oil production begins to decline. Then there is the lack of infrastructure and the expense of switching out the transportation fleet rapidly.

Coal to liquids is very dirty and very expensive. It cannot solve the problem.

Methane hydrates are being mined from a couple of sweet spots that might make production economically viable. The vast bulk of the earth's methane hydrates are not concentrated enough to produce economically.

Besides, all of these alternatives would have to ramp up at an impossibly fast rate when world oil production begins to decline around 2015. The effects of rapidly rising oil prices on the already weak economy will pretty much preclude any massive spending on infrastructure for highly questionable future returns.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:22 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You did not react to these questions:

Image


what this shows is that thus far there has been a mathematical correlation between the 2 trends
it can't be used as evidence that the same correlation will still hold when the underlying causality changes

Futilitist wrote:
Natural gas is cheap now, but it won't be when oil production begins to decline. Then there is the lack of infrastructure and the expense of switching out the transportation fleet rapidly.

Coal to liquids is very dirty and very expensive. It cannot solve the problem.

Methane hydrates are being mined from a couple of sweet spots that might make production economically viable. The vast bulk of the earth's methane hydrates are not concentrated enough to produce economically.


sounds like an argument from incredulity to me - there may well be a period when the new energy resources hasn't ramped up to fill the gap yet, and that may well be a difficult period, but it doesn't exclude that if they fulfil their current promise that may well prove to be a temporary blip

after all, when charcoal was replaced by coal there must have been a local depletion before the infrastructure for transporting coal came into its stride

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:03 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You did not react to these questions:

Image


what this shows is that thus far there has been a mathematical correlation between the 2 trends
it can't be used as evidence that the same correlation will still hold when the underlying causality changes

You still did not repond to my questions:

1. Do you think that the correlation of the inflection of the energy per capita curve (from 1910 till about 1950) with World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II was just a coincidence?

2. World population growth began to slow in 1978. Energy per capita also began to decline in 1978, the very same year. Coincidence?

3. World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and overall oil production has grown by only .2% since. The world economy has been totally stagnant during that same period. Coincidence?

When energy supplies are plentiful, times are good. When energy supplies are not plentiful, times are bad. It really is pretty much that simple. If this simple, yet elegant insight is true, it helps explain our history in a way that actually makes sense. It helps explain the rise of despots, and world wars. It helps explain the ups and downs of the economy. It gives us the ability to see ahead (even if we might not like what we see).

Science is about understanding the fundamental patterns in nature around us, seeing the forest despite the trees. If my conception of the fundamental importance of energy to our species explains so much and fits the data so well, why do you reject it out of hand?

marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Natural gas is cheap now, but it won't be when oil production begins to decline. Then there is the lack of infrastructure and the expense of switching out the transportation fleet rapidly.

Coal to liquids is very dirty and very expensive. It cannot solve the problem.

Methane hydrates are being mined from a couple of sweet spots that might make production economically viable. The vast bulk of the earth's methane hydrates are not concentrated enough to produce economically.

sounds like an argument from incredulity to me...

I am not making an argument from incredulity. I think you are making an argument from wishful thinking.

marnixR wrote:
...- there may well be a period when the new energy resources hasn't ramped up to fill the gap yet...

Nope. There WILL BE a period when alternatives will not be able to fill the gap. The US Department of Defense thinks that will period will begin around 2015. You make it sound like a far off hypothetical.

marnixR wrote:
...and that may well be a difficult period...

Gosh, that doesn't sound so bad when you say it that way. Once oil prices begin to spike again, it may well be a catastrophic period for the economy. In fact, it likely will be. That is what the US DoD thinks. And if you think about it realistically, it just makes sense.

marnixR wrote:
...but it doesn't exclude that if they fulfil their current promise...

That is a very big IF.

marnixR wrote:
...that may well prove to be a temporary blip

The emergency situation will not be a temporary blip. Oil depletion rates will continue to accelerate every year, up to a maximum of 7% per year.

marnixR wrote:
after all, when charcoal was replaced by coal there must have been a local depletion before the infrastructure for transporting coal came into its stride

How is that situation comparable?


“The life contest is primarily a competition for available energy.” – Ludwig Boltzman (1886)

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:25 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You still did not repond to my questions:

1. Do you think that the correlation of the inflection of the energy per capita curve (from 1910 till about 1950) with World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II was just a coincidence?

2. World population growth began to slow in 1978. Energy per capita also began to decline in 1978, the very same year. Coincidence?

3. World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and overall oil production has grown by only .2% since. The world economy has been totally stagnant during that same period. Coincidence?


ok, i'll humour you on this one, but tbh we've reached the point past which no further sensible discussion is possible - we appear to have descended into an eternal yes-no loop

as for your questions (all three of them), correlation doesn't necessarily have to imply causation, and even if a correlation means causation for a period of, say, a century, that's no guarantee that the correlation will continue to hold, especially when the rules of the game change - which is certainly the case when oil dries up and other energy source have to try and take up the slack

under those circumstances it's anybody's guess whether past correlations remain or fall apart

again, remember the worst type of prediction futurologists can make is when they extrapolate along the lines of "if this goes on ..." : this sort of prediction is bound to fray at the edges sooner or later, and very often in a rather unpredictable fashion - have a look at predictions made in the early 20th century of what life would be like in the early 21st century (i.e. now) and see how far off their predictions are from our current reality

i intend to stop posting in this thread - remind me to revisit it in 2 or 3 year's time, to see how reality compares with your predictions

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
You still did not repond to my questions:

1. Do you think that the correlation of the inflection of the energy per capita curve (from 1910 till about 1950) with World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II was just a coincidence?

2. World population growth began to slow in 1978. Energy per capita also began to decline in 1978, the very same year. Coincidence?

3. World production of conventional crude oil peaked in 2005 and overall oil production has grown by only .2% since. The world economy has been totally stagnant during that same period. Coincidence?


ok, i'll humour you on this one, but tbh we've reached the point past which no further sensible discussion is possible - we appear to have descended into an eternal yes-no loop

As in yes, I keep presenting evidence - no, you refuse to address it.

marnixR wrote:
as for your questions (all three of them), correlation doesn't necessarily have to imply causation, and even if a correlation means causation for a period of, say, a century, that's no guarantee that the correlation will continue to hold, especially when the rules of the game change - which is certainly the case when oil dries up and other energy source have to try and take up the slack

under those circumstances it's anybody's guess whether past correlations remain or fall apart

When those other energy sources can't manage to take up the slack, it is our civilization that will fall apart.

marnixR wrote:
again, remember the worst type of prediction futurologists can make is when they extrapolate along the lines of "if this goes on ..." : this sort of prediction is bound to fray at the edges sooner or later, and very often in a rather unpredictable fashion - have a look at predictions made in the early 20th century of what life would be like in the early 21st century (i.e. now) and see how far off their predictions are from our current reality

This isn't about comparing historical examples of predictions about the future and you know it.

marnixR wrote:
i intend to stop posting in this thread - remind me to revisit it in 2 or 3 year's time, to see how reality compares with your predictions

You must be kidding. Why did you start this thread if you don't really want to discuss it? What kind of discussion forum is this? Coward. :oops:

I would direct the readers to review this thread, and others on this general topic, to see that I have presented a very well documented case. I have diligently attempted to engage the folks here in an honest discussion about the most important issue of our time. No one has refuted even a single one of my arguments. And now you run away, marnixR.

This forum does a grave disservice to all of mankind. I don't what your sleezy agenda really is or why you feel the need to mislead, but people have a right to know the truth about this. Peak oil most certainly does matter!

Shame on you.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:11 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
You must be kidding. Why did you start this thread if you don't really want to discuss it? What kind of discussion forum is this? Coward. <snip> And now you run away, marnixR. <snip> I don't what your sleezy agenda really is or why you feel the need to mislead. <snip> Shame on you.

Nothing in marnixR's replies warranted this type of nonsense. He has been incredibly respectful and patient toward you despite your history here, and yet you reward him by lashing out like this. Knock it off. Now.

Futilitist wrote:
This forum does a grave disservice to all of mankind.

Thanks for the feedback, but let me remind you that you come here voluntarily. You are free to leave at any time. If you keep up this type of behavior, however, your departure from this forum will not be voluntary.

Responses to this post will be moved to the Trash Can. Posts regarding moderator actions (like the moving of posts to the Trash Can) will themselves be trashed.

If you see your posts being moved to the Trash Can yet keep posting about moderator actions or other content about people and personalities (i.e. not directly related to the thread topic) anyway, you will lose your posting privileges.

You will receive no other warnings from me.


The situation has been made clear. What happens next is on you.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:31 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4827
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
As in yes, I keep presenting evidence - no, you refuse to address it.


no, make that "refuse to accept it"

Futilitist wrote:
This isn't about comparing historical examples of predictions about the future and you know it.


but historical examples, especially the mistakes from the past, have a critical bearing on current predictions

Futilitist wrote:
You must be kidding. Why did you start this thread if you don't really want to discuss it? What kind of discussion forum is this? Coward. :oops:


i think it's perfectly sensible to discontinue a discussion that is leading nowhere
i could start calling you names in return, but i'm not going to - goodbye

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:41 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
Quote:
Futilitist wrote:
This forum does a great disservice to all of mankind


Lucky then that not all of mankind visits here :lol:

_________________
gone also


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:21 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
tridimity wrote:
Quote:
Futilitist wrote:
This forum does a great disservice to all of mankind


Lucky then that not all of mankind visits here :lol:

Thank you for that dose of perspective, tridimity. In the big picture, I don't suppose this forum can actually do any real harm. ;)

But I believe that if we don't face the reality of peak oil, it will make the situation far worse than it needs to be. Widespread denial, though understandable from an emotional angle, nonetheless hinders the political process. Without widespread awareness, how will we ever adapt?

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/policy-maker ... il-action/

Quote:
Policy-makers slow to take peak oil action

It is over a decade since the launch of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) — a network of scientists and others working to determine the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world’s production of oil and gas. In the interim, peak oil has gone from an “extremist fringe theory” (see upcoming Peeking at Peak Oil for more details) to an accepted fact addressed by some of the world’s most influential bodies including the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Yet, in almost all countries of the world, policy-makers remain silent, inactive or, perhaps worse, deliberately ignore this issue, hoping that it will just go away.
...
The evidence is now overwhelming

Back in 2005 we could perhaps forgive a policy-maker who was unaware of the implications of the peaking of global oil production. Today, we can only conclude that any policy-maker who doesn’t take this problem very seriously is deliberately trying to maintain a viewpoint that ignores this growing body of evidence.

To cite some examples, researchers at one of the world’s leading think tanks, Chatham House, published a report in 2008 arguing that there will be an oil supply crunch in the next five to ten years. In 2009 the UK Energy Research Centre published the “Global Oil Depletion Report” and argued that there is significant risk of a peak in production before 2020. The 2010 report from the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security argues that peak oil will occur within the next decade, potentially by 2015.

That same year, the IEA had a “road to Damascus” conversion with the publication of the “2010 World Energy Outlook” and the public admission by chief economist Fatih Birol that peak oil could come as early as 2020. The IMF has also entered the arena this year with a working paper entitled “The Future of Oil: Geology versus Technology”. There is an excellent review of this study on the Oil Drum but the basic conclusion from the research paper is that “the real price of oil… would have to nearly double over the coming decade to maintain an output expansion that is modest in historical terms”.

When the IEA and IMF begin to explore the implications of peak oil, this ought to be the clearest signal to policy-makers that the time to act is upon us.

Another influential commentator on peak oil issues is Sir David King, former UK Government Chief Scientist. In 2010, through Oxford University, he published a paper arguing that the estimates of conventional oil reserves should be significantly downgraded by up to one third (i.e., we probably have only 850 billion and 900 billion barrels, as opposed to as much as 1,350 billion barrels previously thought). The issue here is that the vast majority of the world’s oil reserves have never been independently audited.

More recently, in January 2012, King teamed up with James Murray (University of Washington) to publish a paper in Nature arguing that we have passed the tipping point for oil.
...
Robert Hirsch enumerated techniques/arguments used by oil executives to justify ignoring peak oil and these may also explain why policy-makers do the same thing. Here are some examples that I have modified from Hirsch’s list.

(1) Optimism bias — We always find a way forward, including the finding of new energy sources, as we did from wood, to coal, to oil.
(2) Event timing — It won’t happen soon, so talking about it is counter-productive.
(3) Stock prices — Talking about peak oil could undermine the stock market.
(4) Fear — This relates to the above, a declaration of peak oil could cause chaos — even beyond the markets.
(5) No plans — We have not figured out what to do about peak oil, so best not to talk about it yet.

All of the above somehow or other lock us into inaction. But we need a breakthrough, before we face a breakdown. We need a large number of governments pushing forward with policy measures (because others will follow) designed to ensure economic and social resilience in even the worst-case peak oil scenarios.

Bearing in mind the very pressing nature of this issue and the time that it will take to effectively implement measures, we need that breakthrough to happen very, very soon.

The article mentions former UK Government Chief Scientist Sir David King. He has been quite outspoken on the subject. He seems to think that peak oil matters a lot:

http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=23494

Quote:
Sir David King Warns of Peak Oil

UK's former Chief Scientist accuses world governments of having their 'heads in the sand' on future oil scarcity.

After famously stating that the threat from climate change is graver than that posed by terrorism, former government chief scientist Sir David King has this week issued another stark warning, arguing that oil supplies could peak far sooner than anticipated by politicians and businesses.

Speaking this week in his role as director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (SSEE) at the University of Oxford, King accused governments around the world of having their "heads in the sand" over the risks associated with their continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Sir David King also coauthored, with David Murray, an article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature stating that world oil supplies have passed the ‘tipping point’:

http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/articles/i/4814/

Quote:
World oil supplies beyond tipping point, says Sir David King

World oil supplies have passed the ‘tipping point’, according to Sir David King writing in today’s edition of peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature.

In the analysis of the oil market, the Oxford University academic and colleague James Murray of the University of Washington, suggest that oil supply reached a ceiling of economically affordable rates in 2005.

Since then, conventional crude oil production has stalled at 72-75 million barrels per day producing “unheralded” price spikes of between $40 and $140 per barrel.

The concept of ‘peak oil’ – that global production will reach or has reached a peak and then declines – is often discussed in terms of assessments of global reserves that can be extracted commercially.

But King and Murray argue that the concept can be misleading and that actual production records are more telling. Even though reported reserves appear to be increasing, the percentage available for production is decreasing.

“We are not running out of oil, but we are running out of oil that can be produced easily and cheaply,” state King and Murray.

The oil market appears increasingly unable to respond to rising demand, say the academics, and other fossil fuel resources don’t seem capable of making up the shortfall.

“There is less available fossil fuel than people think, but what really matters is the production rate,” write King and Murray. “The approaches needed for tackling the economic impacts of resource scarcity and climate change are the same: moving away from a dependence on fossil-fuel energy sources.”

Rising oil prices were a “major contributor” to the 2008 recession, argue the academics, and have added significantly to the Euro zone crisis.

Future oil prices rises are unlikely to be borne by the world economy, making the only option a move away from fossil fuels. That transformation, say the authors, needs to start immediately.

The point is that peak oil is a reality that we need to face whether we like it or not. I think we will be better able to adapt if we keep our eyes open. That makes sense, doesn't it?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:10 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
The point I feel you are missing (about which you are being intentionally obtuse?) is that criticism of your foundational premises and acknowledgement of the availability of alternative energy solutions is not equivalent to denial that we face a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:40 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
The point I feel you are missing (about which you are being intentionally obtuse?) is that criticism of your foundational premises and acknowledgement of the availability of alternative energy solutions is not equivalent to denial that we face a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil.

1. No one has presented any substantial refutation of my foundational premises.

2. I fully acknowledge and try to account for alternative energy solutions in my claims.

3. Saying that we face "a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil" is not the same thing as acknowledging that we likely face decreasing daily production of oil by 2015, is it? Do you disagree with the US Department of Defense about this?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:13 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
Saying that we face "a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil" is not the same thing as acknowledging that we likely face decreasing daily production of oil by 2015, is it?

One has more detail, but both say essential equivalent things, yes.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:43 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Saying that we face "a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil" is not the same thing as acknowledging that we likely face decreasing daily production of oil by 2015, is it?

One has more detail, but both say essential equivalent things, yes.

I think you are trying to walk a very fine line, iNow. This causes some logical inconsistencies:

A. "The world has a only a finite amount of oil."
B. "By 2015 we will begin to experience an ever worsening oil emergency."

A=B? Seriously? The language of science tends to be a little more detailed and specific than that. Here is an analogy from another field that also requires a somewhat exacting use of language, medicine:

It would be like a doctor saying to a patient either:

A. "Your poor lifestyle choices may effect your health someday."
-or-
B. "We need to get you to an emergency room as fast as possible!"

Clearly A and B are not essentially equivalent. :shock:

Also, If A is true and B=A, then B must also be true. That means that you essentially agree with the US Department of Defense that world daily production of oil is likely to begin it's irreversible decline by 2015. If so, would you mind formally acknowledging that? If not, can you explain the logical inconsistencies inherent in your position?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: peak oil - does it matter ?  |  Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 9:10 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5664
Location: Iowa

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
I think you are trying to walk a very fine line, iNow.

Good to know. I still feel we're largely saying the same thing and you're arbitrarily trying to make an argument out of essentially nothing. The reasons for my conclusion here are made more obvious when you see how you've selectively quoted me and left out the text that clearly showed the alignment between the positions.

Here's how you quoted me when making your argument (you represented my position as option A):
Futilitist wrote:
A. "The world has a only a finite amount of oil."
B. "By 2015 we will begin to experience an ever worsening oil emergency."
Yet what I actually said was, "we face a finite and decreasing overall supply of oil."

Likewise, you're now moving the goal posts on your own position. What you really said (and now changed in your option B above) was, "we likely face decreasing daily production of oil by 2015." That is not equivalent to "we will begin to experience an ever worsening oil emergency."

It is not quite as silly as you make it out to be when you work from the words we all originally chose and not the ones you've just made up or replaced them with.


I also find it a bit funny that you have the nerve to suggest marnixR is a "coward" with a "sleazy agenda" when you engage in such slimy tactics yourself. It's okay, though. Keep up this type of nonsense and you'll be shown the door. You have no leverage here.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy