Oil Peak
 

Oohboy.
I found this link on fark.com, which reads (in part):

I read the whole article.

I am now shaking in my boots.

Tonight I am going to call my mom (a former oil company engineer) and ask her about this.

There have been so many scares over the years (water, air, food, Y2K, bioterrors, gmos, ad nauseum) that I'm reluctant to believe his whole premise lock, stock and barrel.

But I couldn't find any logical errors in his reasoning.

Oh, shit.

- Pie

My comment was 6th on that thread:

There are always doomsayers.

There is never doom.

This is a pattern I have noticed in life.

Unfortunately, I can't read the fark comments here from work (I'm not sure why; it just tells me that "connection was refused from 127.0.0.1"... I think my employer blocks it).

I agree that my gut tells me this is all a tempest in a teacup, but do you have data? Where is his argument flawed? What figures does he use that are incorrect? What has he overlooked?

Feelings and intuition don't play a role here. But please, someone, prove him wrong!

- Pie :worried:

I dont normally comment on your threads Pie, but let me throw my silly opinion in here.

If oil becomes unavailable for what ever reason, just watch the alternative evergy sources that will emerge that were previously uneconomical.

Many might even be more eco-friendly. Who knows?

I'd rather worry about the Dems kicking my door down to nab my handguns. :D

So wait, according to this guy, the peak oil thing is already a problem ... and we haven't touched ANWAR, right? Thought that was supposed to be one of those 100 year reserves ... by which time we just might find some other energy source.

Well there are probably many ways to debunk it. My favorite is through markets. This guy doesn't understand how markets work and how they smooth out even the worst problems like this.

Standard supply curve stuff applies. If the supply goes down, the price will increase. Demand will decrease. Then a smaller supply is needed from there on out...

Markets apply in spades. There are futures markets in oil where you can buy barrels of oil next year with the money you have now. If your business depends on oil, you can smooth out your own risk by buying futures contracts now. Or you could buy half of your oil in futures contracts and half on delivery or something. I don't really know all the mechanics of it, but I know it's done.

If there really is a sea change in the supply of oil, it will change so many different things first, before it's even noticed by anyone. I imagine the futures market drives exploration which smooths out this problem. It would also affect how alternative sources are used and how they're managed. I've heard that shale becomes instantly interesting if the price of oil doubles, and how that's a ceiling on the price of oil.

It would also change how we feel about conservation; if the price of gas doubled, like the 70s we would quickly head back to the dealership and turn in our minivans for Mini Coopers. We'd go through a messy time while we made the transition to some new approach. And then we'd find our feet again, and eventually power our cars with hydrogren generated by nukes at night or something. And press for more Segway lanes downtown.

The real problem is not transportation or energy per se. It's the Green Revolution. The world currently has enough to eat (if in fact it does) because of petrochemicals.

Keep increasing the population at the current rate* and decrease (or even keep constant) the food supply**. What happens? Perhaps over here in Rich America our fat asses won't notice the problem for a while, but people will die. Millions of them. Billions of them? And all without considering the ramafications of transportation or other energy needs.

- Pie


* Heaven forbid we spend money on population control, right Mr. Bush?

** http://www.2030spike.com/excerpts_chptr_2.htm
"Current corn yields in the United States, now 130 bushels an acre, [would fall] to around 30 bushels."

The food is also subject to those market conditions.

And BTW, population control is now no longer needed - that's the previous doomsaying end of the world scenario, and 30 years later it's been completely and utterly debunked.

How many people can the world's infrastructure support? You do think there is an upper limit, right? It may not be soon, but it is coming.

Doomsayers are always premature, but population does increase exponentially. Slowing the rate of increase is preferable to waiting for an event to decrease it.

The population boom doom stuff was a big deal in the 70s. Many many people thought it was inevitable and disastrous. It was taught in universities that way.

But then something happened, and it's no longer a problem:

http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economi...ld_bearing.jpg

So I say, when predicting the future, don't count on current trends remaining current.

"[If grain shipments stop] many here on Terra would die. Have you read Malthus?"

"Don't think so."

"Many would die. Then a new stability would be reached with somewhat more people--more efficient people and better fed. This planet isn't crowded; it is just mismanaged... and the unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food. 'Give.' Read Malthus. It is never safe to laugh at Dr. Malthus; he always has the last laugh. A depressing man, I'm glad he's dead."

- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

You don't think that that something that happened may have been the start of population control measures in China and the promotion of birth control in the third world by the US? Would we be OK if those were removed? (The latter already has been, after that chart was made).

That's like Bush saying that the air is much cleaner now than it was in the '70s, so we can ease up on the regulations. The pollution issue hasn't gotten less important - we were doing something about it. If we stop doing it, things will get worse again.

That's probably part of it, but the point remains that in predicting the future, you can't discount the possibility that pigs may in fact fly.

In fact, with our ability to manage genetics, one could almost be certain at this point that pigs WILL fly. Think about that for a moment... the very metaphor for the impossible could almost certainly be achieved within our lifetimes, if we wanted it. Talk about raising the bar. We should do a flying pig instead of a Mars mission.

Point is, innovations happen, we get more productive, we advance and this all has a bearing on the future, which is why it's impossible to predict.

I'd rather not have pigs flying around pooping on stuff. The pigeons are bad enough.

You're also up against the cube/square law. You'd have to have some honking big wings to lift a pig. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't be practical.

True...

But, for heaven's sake, don't count on it! There's also the possibility that the pigs could stop even walking. You have to make policy based on current knowledge, not hoping that things will work out in the end.

Ok,

Current trends are already showing Malthus to be wrong, both in population growth and in food producution. Produce per acre is up and population growth is down. The only place population is a real problem is in undeveloped countries and that is a self-solving problem.

And to borrow a quote from myself from another post...

Here's an interesting article relating to scientific predictions about the future and how wrong that can be and how wrong the consistently are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb020404.shtml

Ronald Bailey


I am testifying at an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy" today, Feb. 4, 2004. I was asked to submit testimony about how and why environmental predictions have gone wrong. What follows is the written version of my testimony. (I get a whole five minutes to speak.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enjoy

All of those wrong predictions seemed to share at least one of two features. Either

a) We've found more of the nonrenewable resource, or
b) The rate of increase has gone down recently.

Both of these share one aspect - they put off the danger until later. There isn't an infinite amount of oil, or enough room for infinite people. Efforts in limiting oil use or population growth may be early, but it is not wasted.

In addition, recent improvements in the rates are often due to efforts on our part, such as for endangered species, environmental pollution, and (as mentioned) population growth. If current efforts are abandoned because old predictions did not pan out, then the problems could easily rise back to the rates from the time of the prediction.

I agree. My point was that things have yet to turn out as bad as any of the predictions say they will.

Make no mistake, we need to get our shit together yesterday on non-renewables. Wind, solar, hydrogen IC engines, underwater turbines, bio-diesel, etc. are a necessity, but I've had my fill of the Green Nazis.

...and hippies too.

Don't discount the possibility of flying pigs until you have a good air defense.
- Raekwin

Some of the arguments presented here make me think of the Y2K problem. Lots of money and labor went in to rewriting software before the end of 1999. New Year's Day 2000 came and nothing bad happened. So, was all that time and money wasted, or were the problems averted because of all the effort that went in to solving it?

The same question can be asked about population, climate and oil issues. Are the 'doom sayers' premature, or does the saying of doom delay the doom?

I found this oil statistics site, with lots of interesting data, while searching for US oil consumption and information on the Bakken Formation (inspired by UT's user title). The following quote incited me to come to the Cellar and look for a Peak Oil thread in which to post it:

With the dramatic increases in oil, gasoline, and (to a lesser extent) food prices since 2004, I wonder if any of the other participants in this thread have changed their views as expressed in those carefree days?

We went through these same 'feelings' in the 1970s. Back then America went from something like 25% oil imported to above 50%. The resulting recession made everyone so depressed. Then early 1980 oil prices dropped to the lowest in the history of mankind. Suddenly all that imported oil gets ignored, everything is better, and we ignore reality. Benchmark for stifled innovations are companies that most quashed innovation – ie GM. (So we foolishly blame the oil companies?)

At best of times, we never get below 50% imported oil. Worse, one of the world's largest producers of natural gas must now import natural gas. So again we have this recessionary attitude until all that bad news becomes acceptable ten years later. And then we again ignore the problem for another 30 years.

The problem could be avoided if we decided to address the problem. But we still burn 10 gallons of gasoline in cars and only productively use the energy from less than two gallons. Waste remains unchanged from 50 years ago. Do we decide to fix this? History says no as demonstrated by the so many who even denied the obvious - that global warming does exist.

The prediction was that domestic production would peak in the 1970s. It did. The prediction was that worldwide production would peak sometime about now. Same solutions to global warming, pollution, gas mileage standards, etc all require the same innovations. However our American attitude towards innovation was to burn more oil, pretend a problem did not exist, and even stifle research into technologies that will be needed maybe 30 years from now - ie quantum physics.

"That all costs money', the MBA complains. A problem does not exist because spread sheet do not measure that problem and cannot predict any solutions. Same problem in 1970s still exist. So we pretend problems don't exist as White House lawyers rewrite the science. Problems solved because we have a big military to protect OUR oil. Eventually this worsening problem will be acceptable so that we ignore it - a lesson from history.

It should have been routine for cars of current sizes to average above 30 MPG long ago. Then we would have technologies that others (ie China, India) need to buy. We did not develop those technologies in the 1980s by pretending those high tech industries are somehow smoke stack industries. So what do we have that they need? So what did we create to avert a same problem that has existed even in the 1970s? Instead, GM can sell SUVs with 1960 technology engines, with gasoline mileage lower than in the 1960s, put fancy painted steel around it, and calls that innovation.

Instead of innovating where the problem is (domestic automakers such as GM), the innovative companies (oil companies) will discover more oil. Then we will pretend that problem is solved. Deja vue from 30 years ago.

So everything was rosy in 2004. I'd like to see what he would tell them today.

More good stuff:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4254875.html

Be sure and follow the pages "continued". Cool and informative graphs and info.

I think the way things are going, we are going to be moving toward hydrogen fueled cars soon anyway. It really is the best answer to the problems.
You want to talk about green emitions....the byproducts from combusting hydrogen is mostly water. We can generate hydrogen from electrolysis of water and seperating it into hydrogen and oxygen.
If they engineer it correctly, we can have a car that you fill up with water and uses an electric motor to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then uses the hydrogen to fuel the car which in turn generates electricity for the motor. It could then collect the exaust which is mostly water and use it to convert back to hydrogen again.

You just invented perpetual motion!

Geepers, why did not one think of this simple idea years ago? It must be a vast oilco conspiracy to prevent new technologies.

sarcasm? sarcasm? in a thread about the very survival of our species? our way of life? our planet? you sir OBVIOUSLY own large amounts of Halliburton stock and dine with the fat oil barons.;)