When do you let it change your life?

[Blue]

I'm aware that we have more then one peak oil thread, however they seem to have diverged into other topics.

I had previously researched peak oil and recently a poster posted this site:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
A sobering read. One of those things that you can't seem to bring yourself to believe. Multiple times as I read the text I would come up with a counter point and say "What about this?". Only to scroll down to find the point covered in full as the next heading.

I'm interested in the analysis of people who have a better understanding of it then I.

If it does seem to be a large probablity then at what point do you say "It looks like this is happening, better put aside other plans and move away from the population centers."

In thinking over this post last night, the only reason not to post this was fear of sounding like a naive alarmist. I decided that's not a valid reason.

+Blue

[Trystorp]

I'm the guilty party that posted that link. I had much the same reaction as you. I remain somewhat cynical (as I do of most anything) but it's an awfully convincing read. Like you, I wish I were more informed.

[Sue Denim]

There are a lot of sites on this, and the one you link is among the most sobering. If you really want to be depressed, then there is www.dieoff.org . I don't think it gets any more sobering than that. For something more positive, check out www.rmi.org or read the book at http://www.oilendgame.com/ . These present two points along the continuum of what can be done about things.


Peak Oil is going to happen, because fossil fuels are a finite resource. (I disagree with 'abiotic oil' theories, google this if you want to read further, or link1 (http://www.museletter.com/archive/150b.html), link2 (http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm), link3 (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html), link4 (http://www.answers.com/topic/abiogenic-petroleum-origin) ). While oil production is finite, it won't just stop one day, but it will reach a point where it can no longer increase, but will begin to irreversably decline for various reasons. I really don't think this is in dispute by anyone who knows anything at all about it.

The questions come when you try to predict 1) when the peak will occur, 2) how much recoverable oil there is, and 3) what the shape of the 'curve' will be. M. King Hubbert predicted a bell-shaped curve, while the USGS (http://energy.usgs.gov/oilgas.html) predicts more of a distinct peak, followed by a sharp dropoff. There are some in between that predict more of a plateau lasting several years, followed by a gradual but steady decline. The shape is relevant because it will greatly influence the effect that peak oil will have. And for a given level of URR (ultimately recoverable reserves), the shape will influence the peak date (or vice-versa, depending on how you look at it.) The area under the curve is URR.

The USGS also predicts more URR than just about anybody. There are really two factors involved in URR. One is how much oil is in the ground, and the other is what percentage of that oil will be produced. USGS seems to accept some optimistic views of oil in the ground, and at the same time, appears to accept the "economist" view that increasing prices will raise the percentage by making enhanced recovery techniques more economical and therefore more likely. Some of these techniques include pumping water, methane, CO2, etc. into wells to increase the pressure, and allowing greater recovery in adjacent wells. Saudi Arabia already pumps millions of gallons of water a day into its fields to keep the oil flowing. While this does increase production levels for a given field on the front side of the production curve, it tends to produce steeper declines. Given the importance of the shape of the curve on our lives, this is an important thing to consider.

Keep in mind that demand tends to grow, in spite of this supply curve. Wihout serious changes to consumer behavior and very large development of alternatives, this means a gap between demand and supply. This is the thing that sites like LATOC and others talk about. There is a wide range of optimism or pessimism depending on how you think this difference will play out. For those who think that technology (alternatives, conservation, etc.) will save us, the outcome is not so grim. For those who see problems with alternatives (there are many), as well as with convservation, the picture is very grim indeed. Those in the latter camp tend to point to how big a role fossil fuels are in just about everything, and come to the conclusion that a lack of fossil fuels, combined with limited alternatives, will mean a collapse in society.

I tend to agree that alternatives are limited due to the fact that almost no alternative has the same energy density as oil or natural gas (coal does, but it's nasty to burn). Technology won't go away, but I think there will be a contraction in the overall level of energy available. Most importantly, I don't believe that the current level of food production can be sustained on a global level without large amounts of fossil fuels. LATOC has a link in their articles about the oil we eat (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html), which explains this further.

Finally, there is the economic effect. A capitalist (as opposed to free market) economy depends on growth to be sustainable. Nobody is going to invest in anything unless they expect a greater return on their investment. Energy is a HUGE contributor to economic growth (IMO), so it makes sense that expensive energy or a lower availability of energy will have a devastating effect on the economy. High fuel prices and/or limited availability have affected the economy before. The difference is that the price and scarcity will be permanent. I think this is a radical change that a capitalist system isn't prepared to deal with.

In other words, this is going to change our lives, dramatically and permanently, IMO.

These are just some of my thoughts. I encourage you to do some more research on your own and come up with your own opinions. Here are some items that might help you in your search:

*Kenneth Deffeyes (http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/) is a geologist that explains the Hubbert peak theories, as well as the science of oil, quite well in his first book "Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage". Having read this puts abiotic oil in perspective, too.
*James Howard Kunstler (http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/) wrote "The Long Emergency" and has a rather alarmist point of view about the structure of society and how it must change if we are to survive.
* Richard Heinberg (http://www.museletter.com) also has a couple books on the subject, and while he'd still like to see a solution come about, he isn't hopeful that the most optimistic scenario will play out.
* Michael Lynch (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=michael+lynch+oil) is an economist that strongly believes that higher prices will yield sufficent increases in URR to make Peak Oil a far away problem.
* Amory Lovins of RMI (www.rmi.org) believes that technology will meet the gap.
* Matthew Simmons (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/) has gone around lately questioning the Saudi oil claims and predicts that they will soon peak or already will peak. This means a global peak, as he sees it.
* Cambridge Energy Research Associates (http://www.cera.com/home/) (CERA) has some optimistic predictions about oil production.
* United States Geological Society (USGS (http://energy.usgs.gov/oilgas.html)) also has some optimistic views about production
* ASPO (http://peakoil.net/) has some less optimistic predictions about production.
* The Hirsh Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report)talks about the importance of oil on the economy and what might happen if we don't respond.

Wikipedia has some good articles on Hubbert's Peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak) and Peak Oil in general.

This should get you started. I'll try to come back with links, but this will give you some search terms in the meantime.

[edit to insert links, and to fix some typos]

[Sue Denim]

Here's an interview (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/24/233315/937) with Richard Heinberg on TheOilDrum website. Not only is it interesting, but it also highlights many of the issues surrounding Peak Oil that you may want to consider. I really think that anyone asking the question of what to do about Peak Oil should do their own research, but knowing more detailed questions to be asking is helpful.

I also happen to like his books, and tend to fall about where he does on the issues of how bad it will (or will not) be.

[Blue]

Thanks for the resources Sue. So far it's Peak oil - 9 Anti-alarmists - 0.

Still, how do you prepare? I'm still not quite ready to drop my education and buy self sustainable land in wyoming.

Funny, you know what my largest fear of this whole thing is? Not roving bandits, not social collapse, and not nuclear war. It's loss of the computer and internet.

+Blue

[Sue Denim]

For the moment, I'm acquiring skills and trying to focus on things that have a benefit no matter what happens.. Small scale gardening is not doing much, but it's a start. I'm also looking into more sustainable housing, self defense skills and getting in shape. Eventually, I plan to move to someplace with more land, but also part of a small community. I'm learning to consume much less, which is easier in the beginning, but gets harder as you get rid of the easy stuff. None of this represents the final answer, but it's pointing me in the right direction, I think.

I could live without the internet, although it's proving to be a valuable resource at the moment.

[Dman]

Hogwash.

Did you guys also dig holes in your backyards during Y2K to escape the inevitable doom?

[Dman]

Read this for a more balanced view.

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

It’s difficult to land on one side of the issue or the other without knowing this stuff extensively, because oil is some serious business and virtually everyone has something to gain or lose when discussing it. Therefore a truly objective source is difficult to come by. Confusing matters more, no one knows for sure how much oil there is, or how the economy will react, or how expensive things will get, blah blah blah. So even the rare objective sources do not have any answers, only more assumptions.

My thoughts on the topic are that these kinds of things rarely happen overnight, but rather over a slow, gradual process. Particularly when vast amounts of money are involved (to be lost as well as to be had). Our economic markets will not stand idly by while “civilization comes to an end”. Again there is too much money at stake, for proponents and opponents alike. Civilization will not come to an end over this.

But that’s just not as romantic. It’s more fun to be an alarmist, but truly how often in history have the alarmists been right? By right I mean their dire predictions of the end of civilization “as we know it” come true.

I do agree though that we as individuals should do something about it, i.e. try to conserve as much as we can comfortably handle, not blatantly waste it, but I’m not going to change my entire life around due to a paranoid “feeling” that things “might” go “bad” “someday”. (Emphasis on quoted words). Man, if we did that for every scare that’s out there, we’d all be living in a cave in the mountains. Although that does have a special appeal, I’ll stick to my own comfortable way of life for now.

I’ll do my part as a consumer and trade-in my SUV for a hybrid SUV when it comes available. THAT will make MORE of an impact than anything else, and requires very little effort on my part.

[Sue Denim]

Hogwash.
Anything in particular?


Did you guys also dig holes in your backyards during Y2K to escape the inevitable doom?
I didn't. I addressed the issue directly by fixing code bugs, testing code, etc.

[Dman]

Anything in particular?


See above.

[Sue Denim]

See above.I see nothing in particular that justifies your "you guys" comment.

Is there something said here to which you'd like to respond? The reason I ask is that it seems like you're arguing against some stereotype of what you think Peak Oil represents, as opposed to what's being discussed so far.

[Sue Denim]

Read this for a more balanced view.

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

agreed (link goes to the same page):

Wikipedia has some good articles on Hubbert's Peak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak) and Peak Oil in general.

[PenguinHunter]

I'm with Dman here. Although my knowledge of the topic is not extensive (I do intend to read some more), my immediate concern with the article is the way they play down the value of alternative sources of energy. I just skimmed some sections so maybe I missed something but I think they are playing up the alternative sources' dependence on oil far too much. Obviously there will be an immediate need for oil to develop these alternative energy areas but there will not be a permanent dependence on oil once these areas are established. Even if we did still use oil reserves for uranium/plutonium mining and plastic/pesticide manufacturing I think we would be ok for a very long time. I'm still reasonably confident in our ingenuity as a race. I was just reading the other day about a possible breakthrough in solar panel technology. I'll try and find it. Their conclusion, with all the "if we manage to do this" 's, just reinforce my view that this is more of a slanted alarmist argument. It may be valuable to get the world community into action a bit faster but I don't think there is a serious need to worry.

EDIT: Here is the solar thing. Some company called "Nanosolar Inc." http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1161

and the more pessimistic: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/40971.html

If it works though, we'll be hearing about it soon.

[ptGatsby]

I typed this out fast and will post it as is. Forgive some of the logic leaps and bad expressions!

Actually, I have some knowledge of this professionally... well, indirectly professionally. I'm not an expert, but I do listen at work. Sometimes.


There are some major holes, both with the theory itself and the psychology behind it. Let's start with the arguments against it (weakest first!);

1) The whole basis for the majority of the alarmists is the Hubbert Peak. It was produced in 1956. The curve has not changed. In addition, refinements to the paper (continental US in 1971, world peak in 2004) is not indicative of total oil available, but does correlate to the oil economics at the time. Canada, especially, has considerable amount of high sulfur oil, as does many of the southern states in the US (previously dropped in 1970, with the beginning of the Middle East extraction). It is simply not economical to extract them, though increasingly through technology and higher prices it is getting close. It also discounts the increase in alternative fuel (Natural Gas, for example, is for some reason not included in the peak calculations, and is expected to rise by double digits for the next decade).

2) It is a prediction that is not based on anything 'predictive' - "we will run out eventually" aside. There is no trend, no statistical data that shows that the curve would exist as stated. Certainly, given infinite time, there will be a rise and peak of oil extraction. However, the actual curve needs to have a certain amount of justification for starting in 2000 and ending in 2050, which it does not. See ASPO revisions for an example.

3) Previous predictions have all been proven untrue - starting in the 80's! The peak was suppose to hit, using 'current' data (then, like now) before.

4) The public cry for it always happens when oil prices are high, as it indirectly seems to support this theory. It does not. I find it to be a huge amount of group think, pushed by a number of different causes. It gains momentum which gathers its own 'data', well presented, by those not being objective.

5) China is a major player in the last 15 years. They are the imbalance in the supply-demand curve. In other words, yes we don't have enough oil right now. When a country the size of China begins, in 1990, to increase its energy needs by a consistent 5% (followed by a 3 year draught) and then go to a close-to double digit increase there after, you cannot find oil fast enough. Then there are issues of transportation and increasing refining capability.

6) Academia and Political measures aside, those who would be affected by this don't believe it. Dozens of independent studies have been done for oil companies, oil transport companies and refineries. They use hard data to show what they are talking about - and the companies have a lot on the line. However, the same cannot be said for the other camps who tend toward fixed and massaged variables. Examples of this include Colin Campell, which is also now a political activist (he is the founder of ASPO, one of the major players in the arena). He put forth the Rimini protocol, geared towards keeping oil prices down.

7) Fixed and massaged variables - All peak theories use fixed variables on the supply side and a continued, exponential growth, on the demand side. There is no account for the change of technology, for new discoveries (some actually are discounted to 0 rather than a fixed amount - a guaranteed way of forming a 'curve'), alternatives, for price adjustments and so forth. The reason for the constant revisions in the alarmists peak (ala ASPO!) come from 'new discoveries' that keep happening. This has happened since the 80's, and this one shows no differences.

8) Major measures, like ASPO, have been shown to be incorrect multiple times in the last little bit (wrong trend and less than a decade past). Predictions by more realistic curves have been right within a small margin of error, with correct trending.


So, to sum up all that stuff above, in short it comes down to;

1) Premise is incorrect. Doomsday predictions are repeats of previous predictions, a lot of hype (group-think), data massaging and politic influences. All more neutral looks have shown that the alarmists are incorrect. Alarmists have been consistently forced to revise their reports, market players in the field have consistently been correct.

2) It discounts the flexibility of humankind. Even with a rather sharp decrease in oil production, which is deemed extremely unlikely (none that I know of), humankind would have a 10-50yrs of adjustment - gradual adjustment. There are alternatives to poly materials, like plastics, and there are alternatives to fuel and energy sources. We just don't like them right now.

3) It discounts significant technological advancements already made to extraction techniques, never mind future options.

4) It discounts significant deposits which are still available to us, but have been less economical than the middle-east solution. It also discounts alternative fuel sources, or ignores them entirely.

5) It discounts the price effect on oil consumption as demand exceeds supply.

Anyway, I stand in the middle, like most INTPs. There isn't enough 'truth' to the doomsday, but its difficult to prove something false when it will eventually happen. All I can say is that evidence points towards it not happening now, nor for some time.

[Dman]

I see nothing in particular that justifies your "you guys" comment.

Is there something said here to which you'd like to respond? The reason I ask is that it seems like you're arguing against some stereotype of what you think Peak Oil represents, as opposed to what's being discussed so far.

Pseu donym –

I was responding to


Those in the latter camp tend to point to how big a role fossil fuels are in just about everything, and come to the conclusion that a lack of fossil fuels, combined with limited alternatives, will mean a collapse in society.

I tend to agree that alternatives are limited due to the fact that…

…

I think this is a radical change that a capitalist system isn't prepared to deal with.

In other words, this is going to change our lives, dramatically and permanently, IMO.




My apologies if I misinterpreted your views or took them out of context. The specific “you guys” comment about digging holes in your backyard was in reference to making a dramatic change in your life to prepare for some “end of civilization” scenario. Your post about the changes you were making in your life lead me to this, but perhaps I misinterpreted, and again I retract if this is the case.

[Blue]

I'm just looking for the truth sir.

+Blue

[Sue Denim]

I'm with Dman here. Although my knowledge of the topic is not extensive (I do intend to read some more), my immediate concern with the article is the way they play down the value of alternative sources of energy. I just skimmed some sections so maybe I missed something but I think they are playing up the alternative sources' dependence on oil far too much. Obviously there will be an immediate need for oil to develop these alternative energy areas but there will not be a permanent dependence on oil once these areas are established. Even if we did still use oil reserves for uranium/plutonium mining and plastic/pesticide manufacturing I think we would be ok for a very long time. I'm still reasonably confident in our ingenuity as a race. I was just reading the other day about a possible breakthrough in solar panel technology. I'll try and find it. Their conclusion, with all the "if we manage to do this" 's, just reinforce my view that this is more of a slanted alarmist argument. It may be valuable to get the world community into action a bit faster but I don't think there is a serious need to worry.

EDIT: Here is the solar thing. Some company called "Nanosolar Inc." http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1161

and the more pessimistic: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/40971.html

If it works though, we'll be hearing about it soon.
Solar has the benefit of being among a short list of "renewable"* energy sources. (this includes wind, which is primarly a solar byproduct). If solar energy can be converted to a usable, storable form inexpensively, then it has the best chance of being a long-lasting alternative. Pulling it off cheaply has so far been elusive, but if there is hope, it may very well be here.

*Technically, solar is limited too, but on a time frame that is several orders of magnitude longer than anything like fossil fuels or nuclear fission.

[Xylix]

Pulling it off cheaply has so far been elusive, but if there is hope, it may very well be here.

Just convert the damn electricity into Hydrogen via electrolysis. Store it in either chemical form, or via any other mechanism. This isn't new technology, however doing so relies on Hydrogen Cells to reconvert it -- which are also improving.

Besides, you don't need to store most of the energy. Wind + Solar is a very reliable combination. Heck, wind is extremely reliable provided it is diversified over a large area.

The major problem with the lack of oil is, and has always been, the fact that we'll have to have more energy production methods, as all alternative portable energy methods merely store energy, not used prestored energy. Hence, you have to have enough electricity to run all your electric gadgets PLUS cars, boats, planes etc...


BTW: All energy sources, in the end, are solar! ;)

[Sue Denim]

Anyway, I stand in the middle, like most INTPs. There isn't enough 'truth' to the doomsday, but its difficult to prove something false when it will eventually happen. All I can say is that evidence points towards it not happening now, nor for some time.
I don't think anybody knows exactly when it will happen, because much (not all) of the necessary data is either hidden in the ground or else being held by oil companies and/or governments that are in varying degrees not being fully accurate or forthcoming in what they share. As such, I'm not going to tie my beliefs to any one group's predictions. They're probably all wrong. It's really sad that a question like, "how much oil is there in the ground?" is so hard to answer.

Unfortunately, half of your arguments are about this inherent inaccuracy, presuming to "disprove" Peak Oil.

Yet, even ASPO in their September 2005 newsletter (http://www.peakoil.ie/downloads/newsletters/newsletter57_200509.pdf) state:

596.Revising the Database
Some readers have sought explanations for periodic revisions to the table at the beginning of the Newsletter. It is a summary of a depletion model and database that have been maintained for about 15 years, being subject to continual revision and refinement. It will be readily understood that public reserve and production data are grossly unreliable, and that even the industry databases show widely different estimates. Accordingly, it is necessary to look for trends and relationships, as well as apply common sense and geological knowledge, to try to come up with realistic assessments. The next revision may well se a reduction in the Yet-to-Find, based on extrapolating the falling trend. Furthermore, modelling depletion involves not only the calculation of natural depletion rates as imposed by the immutable physics of the reservoirs, but also relies on assessing politico-economic factors, especially in relation to critical Middle East supply. Each country is evaluated individually and then summed to give regional and world totals. It is well said that all numbers are wrong: the challenge being to determine by how much.
(emphasis theirs)
With regard to predicting oil production levels, given the clear difficulty of obtaining credible and accurate data, it seems disingenuous to attempt to discredit the whole theory because predictions are inaccurate. It is bordering on a straw man argument to point to the need to predict the exact peak as a requirement for the general idea to be valid. That's really not the key point at all.

Hubbert knew he didn't know everything. While he correctly predicted the US-48 peak to be around 1970 (in 1956), the world peak is more complex and more likely to be incorrect. Deffeyes acknowledges this. ASPO acknowledges this. So do Michael Lynch, CERA, and USGS. (the latter three give a 'later' rather than 'sooner' estimate)

Having said this, I don't have any objection whatsoever with your conclusion (the part I quoted). I just think it's a different matter to say "I tend to trust this prediction more than that one" as opposed to "they were wrong before, so they must be wrong again".

[Sue Denim]

Pseu donym –
What can I say, Dman was taken... ;)


My apologies if I misinterpreted your views or took them out of context. The specific “you guys” comment about digging holes in your backyard was in reference to making a dramatic change in your life to prepare for some “end of civilization” scenario. Your post about the changes you were making in your life lead me to this, but perhaps I misinterpreted, and again I retract if this is the case.
Thanks for the reply.

I threw a bunch of ideas out there for consideration, and I only stated a few opinions of my own. I am absolutely sincere in stating that I have difficulty in knowing what to believe, because the answers just are not that clear. I'm trying to sort out the subjective opinions from the more objective "facts". This happens to be an issue that is very complex, and at the same time has the potential to be very important.

FWIW, I consider this to be more akin to hedging:

For the moment, I'm acquiring skills and trying to focus on things that have a benefit no matter what happens. I have not done a single thing that I consider to be a waste if nothing happens at all, nor am I advocating that anyone else do so either.

[Sue Denim]

Just convert the damn electricity into Hydrogen via electrolysis. Store it in either chemical form, or via any other mechanism. This isn't new technology, however doing so relies on Hydrogen Cells to reconvert it -- which are also improving.
I don't follow. Electricity isn't free, and generating hydrogen from electrolysis takes more energy than it produces as a fuel.


Besides, you don't need to store most of the energy. Wind + Solar is a very reliable combination. Heck, wind is extremely reliable provided it is diversified over a large area.
There are indeed strategies to deal with the variability of solar and wind, which work in varying degrees, depending on the specific situations. Even these tend to be local, though, because of line losses in electrical power distribution. And you still need storage options for transportation unless you convert EVERYTHING to rail.


The major problem with the lack of oil is, and has always been, the fact that we'll have to have more energy production methods, as all alternative portable energy methods merely store energy, not used prestored energy. Hence, you have to have enough electricity to run all your electric gadgets PLUS cars, boats, planes etc...You are correct. Fossil fuels contain a very dense store of energy, and that is a key difference between them and most alternatives.


BTW: All energy sources, in the end, are solar! ;)...except geothermal ;). I suppose that fission is too, but there's a big disconnect, and it's not solar in a renewable sense.

[Sue Denim]

I'm just looking for the truth sir.

+Blue
If it were only a whole lot easier...

[ptGatsby]

With regard to predicting oil production levels, given the clear difficulty of obtaining credible and accurate data, it seems disingenuous to attempt to discredit the whole theory because predictions are inaccurate.


Not at all.

It would be far more fallous to *credit* a whole theory when its predictions are inaccurate. The theory must match reality, or it is no longer a theory. Constant revisionism is great, but they are, as you say, merely plugging in the new numbers into their old theory.

I don't mean to dismiss it on this basis alone, however. It was merely a comment on the alarmists methodology and consistency.



It is bordering on a straw man argument to point to the need to predict the exact peak as a requirement for the general idea to be valid. That's really not the key point at all.


No, it is the point. The statement that 'oil will eventually run out' is true. That's all that can be said. I don't disagree with the conceptual nature of the situation, I disagree with the *alarmist* reports.

He, and ASPO, and similars, give specific periods when we would run out. New revisions have done the same. They have been incorrect so far.

Yet, the studies taken on by multiple independent oil companies (etc) have trended correctly.

Why would I believe ASPOs 'studies'? That's the better question. They come up with answers completely different than those using the same numbers!



Hubbert knew he didn't know everything. While he correctly predicted the US-48 peak to be around 1970 (in 1956), the world peak is more complex and more likely to be incorrect. Deffeyes acknowledges this. ASPO acknowledges this. So do Michael Lynch, CERA, and USGS. (the latter three give a 'later' rather than 'sooner' estimate)


My criticism isn't of Hubbert. Its mostly of Aspo and similar who are not being objective.

Hubbert did his work in 1956. He wrote an amazing piece that showed real insight. But for it predicting the 2000 case? Despite everything that happened in the 1970's? Even not knowing about things like China? Not coming even close to real deposits, technology and what not over the next 50 years? Its out of his scope, and there is nothing wrong with that. He is still amazingly accurate. He might not even be wrong! I just don't know.

What's wrong is that people will be scared into acting by a small group of political influenced people based on something that shows no current evidence of being true.



Having said this, I don't have any objection whatsoever with the conclusion (the part I quoted). I just think it's a different matter to say "I tend to trust this prediction more than that one" as opposed to "they were wrong before, so they must be wrong again".


Apologies, I didn't mean it that way. What I mean is that it highlights that the majority of the alarmist reports is coming from a consistently wrong approach or methodology. They could be right this year. Or next year... or maybe ten years from now.

What they can't be called is dependable. What if we were having this conversation in 1996 with their report? Would you, a decade later, still be prone to believe that you need to do something about it? I know I wouldn't. We might very well be having this conversation in a decade... what would you say then? (ie: what would you say if you thought it would happen in 1996, based on those reports?)

[Sue Denim]

Thanks for the reply, ptGatsby. I understand better where you're coming from, you're really evaluating the models and predictions, trying to make your own mind on what approach to believe. On that we agree.

I guess we still disagree about the main point of discussing Peak Oil. Maybe the issue is too charged by doomer sites like dieoff.org et. al. whose message seems to be "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE TOMORROW!". Skepticism against such extremes is undoubtedly warranted. I personally hold the arguments that there is absolutely nothing to worry about to be equally suspicious. To paraphrase one of your comments, I stand somewhere in the middle.

So to me, the issue is about what kind of effect oil (and natural gas) peak will have on my life. It is certainly the case that if peak were happening today, the effect would be different than if it happens in, say, 30 years. If nothing else, the timing will have a big effect on the availability of alternatives. But I think the bigger overall questions are about the feasability and scalability of alternatives, the effect on the economy, and general lifestyle changes that may occur. At least to me, those issues are more worthy of consideration, because for the most part, the limits on oil productioin are mostly immutable (I think it's safe to assume that we will throw every technology into their production that we can, up to practical limits).

[Sue Denim]

I am going to muddy the waters a bit...

Is it just me, or do data like this seem odd?

Saudi Arabia just announced (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=afVg.BEwF2Jw&refer=home) a near doubling of their proven reserves. The announcement didn't include any explanation of how this happened, such as a new discovery. This happens just after Matt Simmons releases his book suggesting that SA might not have as much oil as they say they do.

The jumps for all nations in the mid '80s happened around the time that OPEC changed their rules to allow individual nations to produce at rates proportional to their proven reserves. Some people take that to mean that they fudged the numbers so that they could increase their production. Few corresponding discoveries were announced then, either.

[PenguinHunter]

hmm... interesting. It does seem a bit suspicious. Saudi is a strange place sometimes. I'll ask my Middle East history prof what he thinks of it if I remember.

[Sue Denim]

hmm... interesting. It does seem a bit suspicious. Saudi is a strange place sometimes. I'll ask my Middle East history prof what he thinks of it if I remember.Something I forgot to add is that the reserve levels stay constant, but they're producing oil at the same time, with no announced discoveries.

[Sue Denim]

ptGatsby (or anyone else), do you have any insight into this recent article?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=8825

It talks more specifically about some of the production numbers being tossed around. The author appears to be a doomer, so I'm curious if there's anything you think he may be missing. I thought it was relevant to our previous exchange.

[PenguinHunter]

Something I forgot to add is that the reserve levels stay constant, but they're producing oil at the same time, with no announced discoveries.

.... I don't follow this addition....

My impression of the article was that they have simply changed their estimate without citing any exact evidence. Just saying there is a high likelyhood and we'll let you know how it turns out... later. But then turning that around and saying that high prices are the result of not enough international investment...? By the way does Saudi have any obligation beyond "fair play" to say what their estimates are? Like international/OPEC laws?

[ptGatsby]

But I think the bigger overall questions are about the feasability and scalability of alternatives, the effect on the economy, and general lifestyle changes that may occur. At least to me, those issues are more worthy of consideration, because for the most part, the limits on oil productioin are mostly immutable


I agree with the concern here. However, to put it in perspective, if we are off by a decade, the first fusion reactor will begin its testing in France (that is to say, 2015, testing will start. First reactor would possibly start, from the current view, after 2030). Fusion is a huge pipe dream, but it shows the possibilities.

Ten years ago, 1996, where were we? Even material science has moved leaps and bounds.

I feel that any prediction will be so prone to error that it is merely an excersize in theory... pure theory. I love doing it, but... I'm certainly not confident enough to base life decisions on it.



Saudi Arabia just announced a near doubling of their proven reserves. The announcement didn't include any explanation of how this happened, such as a new discovery. This happens just after Matt Simmons releases his book suggesting that SA might not have as much oil as they say they do.


The whole area is political. The first numbers were fake, the adjusted numbers were fake, and these numbers are fake.

There is nothing about oil fields that is true anymore. Not even here in Canada. Our methods for 'proven reserves' are for investors - they greatly underestimate actual amounts available - this is to offset the amount that cannot be extracted successfully. Its moderately accurate, but... The entire industry is tough to capture.




It talks more specifically about some of the production numbers being tossed around. The author appears to be a doomer, so I'm curious if there's anything you think he may be missing. I thought it was relevant to our previous exchange.


The writer is fairly articulate, and makes good points.

This, however, summarizes the article;

"The bottom line," Hirsch says, "is that no one knows with certainty when world oil production will reach a peak, but geologists have no doubt that it will happen." Our hopes of a soft landing rest on just two propositions: that the oil producers' figures are correct, and that governments act before they have to. I hope that reassures you.


In short - no one knows. You can't say that after reading all the information he presented without cherry-picking it.


Again, heavily politicalized. Robert L Hirsch - heavy government involvement, heavy enviro-practises from the 1970s. Chris Vernon of Powerswitch runs the organisation that sells material on this, including an outlet for Colin Campbell, Matthew Simmons and Chris Skrebowski, people associated with books on the subject and the organisations I disagree with so much. Jean Laherrere is responsible for the ASPO data. All this from googling.

I realise that its not fair to marginalize them and that their data should speak for itself. But it doesn't. Like the article says, these people, and those like them, have been wrong for over a century. Systematically wrong. I want to know why, and all I see is that scientists are lobbying and selling books. Public awareness sells books. Fear sells book. It fits a pattern.

I want facts before I come a conclusion. Scientists do too. Those scientists that are not selling books, but selling information (ala oil companies) and have been systematically correct. Fundamentally, nothing changes this. Until they can tell me why they have been *systematically* incorrect... actually, I'd settle for one of their many bold predictions coming true... then I'd actually listen. Until then, they are the same crowd I read about in the 90's. Actually, they are the same crowd, but besides that... What's the difference between them using "T" preference than a preacher on the corner using "F" preference ranting to the public? Its the same thing, far as I am concerned. Their 'end of the world' is misinterpreted numeric data. The rapture preacher is misinterpreted 'bible' data.

---

It is important to realise that this follows a pattern previously identified in the US. Small groups of academia and politicians get together to *make money* by creating fear. The most current (and mostly past) was the use of Natural Gas to create the fear of 'atomic bomb' level explosions. Lawyers, lobbyiests and certain individuals engineered, from scratch, the whole fear after 9/11.

Anyway, rant mode off - I don't really feel that strongly, but what I feel is fear mongering really *really* gets my blood boiling!

[Xylix]

I don't follow. Electricity isn't free, and generating hydrogen from electrolysis takes more energy than it produces as a fuel.

Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism:

Wind Farm Produces Extra energy: convert extra to hydrogen via electrolisis
Wind Farm Produces too little energy: convert stored hydrogen into electricity via hydrogen cell.

There are dozens of otherways to mitigate the varibability of wind farms. You can for instance, pump water up an incline and recollect the kinetic energy as it falls. Such energy storage patterns are neccessary for a pure Solar/wind production, as these can risk being 'too low' at any point. Yes, they aren't a 100% efficient, but nothing is.


There are indeed strategies to deal with the variability of solar and wind, which work in varying degrees, depending on the specific situations. Even these tend to be local, though, because of line losses in electrical power distribution.

Not all of them are local, and power grids ship energy very long distances already. Why do you think that 'blackouts' can occure in multiple states? Heck, nations often trade and sell electricity across their borders.

Further, for really long distance travel you can simply store the energy into some sort of storage mechanism. Most are inefficient with a good bit of loss, so it'd need to be so far you'd get no advantage from just running a good electric grid.


And you still need storage options for transportation unless you convert EVERYTHING to rail.

There are already dozens of storage mechanisms for cars. Hydrogen or Electric amongst the widest known. You'll just have to live with A) A bigger fuel tank and/or B) lower traveling distance and/or C) decreased preformance.



You are correct. Fossil fuels contain a very dense store of energy, and that is a key difference between them and most alternatives.

Uh no. Nuclear power has 7 magnitudes more energy density than any chemical energy.

The important qualities are: Usable Density, Best Output Mechanism, and Price.

Nothing gives the same preformance as oil, for its price. Mostly because you don't have to pay for the energy stored AS WELL as the manufacture.

Hydrogen has 1/3 the usable density -- though newer storage mechanisms could match or suprass oil -- good enough output, but is currently too expensive to be directly competitive.

Thus only for vehicles that require both high output, and high storage -- which is pretty much just aircraft -- will current technology not suffice. For this there are two choices:

1) Manufacture oil: It can be done, it is just comparitively absurdly expensive.
2) Don't use them.



...except geothermal . I suppose that fission is too, but there's a big disconnect, and it's not solar in a renewable sense.

Energy is energy is energy. All energy is renewable, as no energy is created nor destroyed.

renewable just refers to energies whose magnitude of regrowth is near, or greater than the rate of harvest.

You can produce oil, more oil is being produced by natural processes. It just isn't happening at a rate even vaugely near the same magnitude we are using it.

Geothermal is generally considered renewable, just like solar is despite the fact that the sun will die.



Saudi Arabia just announced a near doubling of their proven reserves. The announcement didn't include any explanation of how this happened, such as a new discovery. This happens just after Matt Simmons releases his book suggesting that SA might not have as much oil as they say they do.

It's either political, or technological. New technology is opening up parts of oil reserves that previously couldn't be used, and new techniques are theroized as litterally doubling the usuable oil of virtually every oil reserve.

So that could be an explanation.


Whatever the case, output will tell the truth.

[Sue Denim]

No offense, Xylix, but I'm having trouble relating your responses to my comments. I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing, for the most part. If you'd like to continue, perhaps a fresh start is in order.

As for this, I can't tell if you're being funny or obtuse:

Energy is energy is energy. All energy is renewable, as no energy is created nor destroyed.
You've paraphrased the first law of thermodynamics. Any discussion of energy sources for human use needs to consider the second law.

[Sue Denim]

ptGatsby, what sources do you find to be credible, given the criteria you've expressed so far?

[ptGatsby]

ptGatsby, what sources do you find to be credible, given the criteria you've expressed so far?


I have two generic answers to that;

1) I find numbers that are consistent credible regardless of source. For instance, I find that North American reserve numbers are generally accurate, so I feel moderately comfortable with the *companies* estimates. I find inconsistency with the majority of Political numbers because I find they follow a pattern of manipulation (be it like Saudi, be it British Enviromentalists or US lawyers... interchange as needed). Those numbers are not consistently shown. Companies that change their numbers explain it in plain english - legal threats, transparency ect.

That's my highest ranking of 'credible'. Consistent numbers over the long haul are more often correct than anything else. This is why incorrect predictions are not credible at all. The numbers are being manipulated incorrectly, generally systematically. Those that are willing to review why they are inconsistent will eventually get consistency - with reality, if not at least with themselves. People with an axe to grind will tend not to do this and force their world view on the data.

2) I find that most sources that are credible do not impose a set belief in the document. For example, reports given to oil companies do not make policy. Alarmists do. This leads to credibility, but is weaker than the above. This refers to the lack of numbers and more towards slant.


What do I find credible? I find the numbers used by the major oil companies to be consistent and credible. I would deem those the best of the reports produced, though which one among them, I'm not sure.

If you mean specific information, I don't have it, and I don't think it has been published. You can see a decent summary here: http://www.trendlines.ca/

I would say that the EIA, IEA, ExxonMobil, BP are all fairly decent, with the BP being on the lower threshold (and my worst fear). BPP is confirmed and not even projected! Truly worst case, in my eyes. You can see the less... credible... ones there too.

Most of the information I read I come across at work. Like I said, not an expert, just incidental information.

My stance is more that I see a lot of information I would consider discredited.

[Sue Denim]

Well, despite the questions of when and how oil production will peak, it does still appear to be inevitable.

So, the original question that started this post still remains--what to do about it.

I think it's safe to say there won't be a consensus here.

[Nighthawk]

Well, despite the questions of when and how oil production will peak, it does still appear to be inevitable.

So, the original question that started this post still remains--what to do about it.

I think it's safe to say there won't be a consensus here.I wish alternative energy would receive higher priority from our governments. Unfortunately, I believe that too many governments are tied to big oil businesses and want to ensure that the profit for those businesses continues. Our best chance might be if one or more of the oil companies gets a handle on a viable alternative energy, and figures out a way to make money off of it. I don't see governments taking the lead on alternative energies.

[Nighthawk]

Any thoughts about the possibility of methyl-hydrate crystals (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/155642/7976) as a viable alternative energy source? Kunstler did not mention this possibility in his rather gloomy Long Emergency book. He seemed to have a reason for most of the other alternative energy sources failing.

[Sue Denim]

Any thoughts about the possibility of methyl-hydrate crystals (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/155642/7976) as a viable alternative energy source? Kunstler did not mention this possibility in his rather gloomy Long Emergency book. He seemed to have a reason most of the other alternative energy sources failing.
Deffeyes mentions this in his second book "Beyond Oil", and basically states that there's a lot of methane there, but nobody has yet been able to find an economical way to extract it. He poses it as a challenge to be addressed.

Heinberg mentions it in his book "Power Down". He expresses concern that attempts to harvest it will result in releasing methane into the atmosphere:
"Oceanic methane hydrates are so plentiful that, in theory, they could power the world for centuries. Some estimates put the total at more than twice the amount of all other fossil fuels combined.
However, the harvesting of the resource constitutes a technical problem of immense proportions. As hydrate material is mined and brought to the ocean surface, it fizzes and bubbles as methane turns to gas and dissolves in the water, Eventually, the methane makes its way into the atmosphere. The problem then is not merely that a potentially valuable substance has been lost, but that a previously stored greenhouse gas has been loosed on the environment."

I mention these two sources because they seem to articulate some key considerations. I don't have a lot of other sources to help evaluate their accuracy.

[ptGatsby]

Also, from what I understand, oil is good because it produces a range of hydro-crabon fuels and extracts. That's the reason for the amount of infrastructure - its everything from plastics to tar to car fuel.

I don't believe - though I could be wrong - that methane is capable of this. In other words, it only touches the upper threshold of refined oil (the higher quality stuff, like fuel), but could never be used for stuff like oil/lube and the plastics.

[Sue Denim]

That's correct, ptGatsby, regarding methane not being a pure substitute for all the products derived from oil. The case could still be made though, that having abundant and cheap methane as a fuel source would free up more of the hydrocarbons being converted now to lighter fuels (to a limited degree, of course), allowing more of the uses you describe. This might require some conversions, like using LNG for automobiles instead of gasoline, etc.

Also, cheap methane would go a long way to making the production the tar sands and oil shale more affordable and likely increase their production rates (ecological concerns notwithstanding). It would help reduce the cost of fertilizer used for food stocks, and perhaps biofuels.

So it wouldn't be a perfect substitute for oil, but it would certainly have a big effect on the timing and effects of the peak of traditional oil sources.

[Sue Denim]

http://www.trendlines.ca/
The chart on their "Oil Depletion Scenarios" section illustrates a statement that I made earlier:

The questions come when you try to predict 1) when the peak will occur, 2) how much recoverable oil there is, and 3) what the shape of the 'curve' will be. M. King Hubbert predicted a bell-shaped curve, while the USGS (http://energy.usgs.gov/oilgas.html) predicts more of a distinct peak, followed by a sharp dropoff. There are some in between that predict more of a plateau lasting several years, followed by a gradual but steady decline. The shape is relevant because it will greatly influence the effect that peak oil will have. And for a given level of URR (ultimately recoverable reserves), the shape will influence the peak date (or vice-versa, depending on how you look at it.) The area under the curve is URR.
USGS isn't included, but I recall it looking something like the one they show for TOTAL (the French company, I presume).

Some things to note are that the ones that show a later peak tend to have a steeper decline. And some have a more distinct peak, while others show a plateau. Understanding the underlying assumptions about the effect of price and technology will explain a major part of the shape differences. Generally, those estimates that predict technology advances and economic factors will contribute to a greater degree are more likely to show a plateau. I understand the plateau to be a balance between technology and demand destruction due to higher prices.

The differences in the area under the curve have more to do with reserve data and assumptions about future discoveries. Some estimates show more optimism, while others show disbelief. ASPO, for example, adjusts OPEC estimates downward, claiming them to be artificially inflated. Some estimates assume a much greater amount of oil to be found, while others think there is less. Finally, some of these put more emphasis on non-traditional oil sources like tar sands and oil shale.

Explaining it to more detail would require more effort (and research) than I have time for. Besides, a google search will probably net you a much better explanation. ;) In any case, I thought it would be helpful to look at the graph with these considerations in mind.

[ptGatsby]

That's correct, ptGatsby, regarding methane not being a pure substitute for all the products derived from oil. The case could still be made though, that having abundant and cheap methane as a fuel source would free up more of the hydrocarbons being converted now to lighter fuels (to a limited degree, of course), allowing more of the uses you describe. This might require some conversions, like using LNG for automobiles instead of gasoline, etc.


In other words, any alternative source of portable energy, of any source, could be used to reduce the demand on Crude oil, correct?

The technology for using any of of the NG's already exist. Out in the boonies here, propane is used as a fuel for cars. We also have a government initiative to use Hydrogen and electric. We are just starting to get hybrid car tax advantages here. So its not that much of a stress. LNG tanker fleets are growing at extremely high numbers to compensate for this already. Governments are already putting out initiatives. Technology research is being geared more and more towards oil. That's a lot of effort from many different angles.

Some structural problems, but people tend to adapt pretty fast. And the faster we do, the more market share someone would end up with... so it should be real fast.

I don't know enough about fractional distillation to say positively, but from what I understand, chemical treatment can change the length of the hydro-carbons, changing low grade fuels to high grade fuels, and vice versa. Cost and chemical requirements aside, anyway.



And some have a more distinct peak, while others show a plateau.


I think this depends on the pricing model they use. The assumption is that once oil has peaked and cost begins to rise, the supply/demand curve smooths the curve until the oil actually starts to 'run out'. In this case, it becomes steep because of inelasticity. Maybe technology is included (oil quantity adjustments), but I don't believe so. More likely different reports use different effects to show how much effect they can have.



The differences in the area under the curve have more to do with reserve data and assumptions about future discoveries. Some estimates show more optimism, while others show disbelief. ASPO, for example, adjusts OPEC estimates downward, claiming them to be artificially inflated. Some estimates assume a much greater amount of oil to be found, while others think there is less. Finally, some of these put more emphasis on non-traditional oil sources like tar sands and oil shale.


Right, but as above, unlike ASPO and alarmists, I believe there are alternatives. We might not be able to quantify them now, but as at the top of this post, there clearly are ways of mitigating oil dependency. Capital replacement costs will be high, yes, but not 'doomsday' style high. Yah, net QOL might decrease across the board, but that's the worst I can see.

There are too many variables to even come close to being completely accurate.

There is one doomsday scenario I can play out, however. That's that the US-(?) oil families (Not to get political, but the whole Cheney etc thing) are literally selling out the world with short-sighted and out of touch realities. In this case, Saudi would literally suck up its last piece of oil under non-economic terms (ie: force) and nearly overnight, fields would start to die out. *That*, or something similar, would do it. Infrastructure could never be built to deal with that kind of a shock.



Explaining it to more detail would require more effort (and research) than I have time for. Besides, a google search will probably net you a much better explanation. In any case, I thought it would be helpful to look at the graph with these considerations in mind.


However, those considerations are realistic, far as I can tell. At least, more realistic than ignoring them... Probably will end up being somewhere in the middle, depending on actual reserve numbers.

[Sue Denim]

That's correct, ptGatsby, regarding methane not being a pure substitute for all the products derived from oil. The case could still be made though, that having abundant and cheap methane as a fuel source would free up more of the hydrocarbons being converted now to lighter fuels (to a limited degree, of course), allowing more of the uses you describe. This might require some conversions, like using LNG for automobiles instead of gasoline, etc.
In other words, any alternative source of portable energy, of any source, could be used to reduce the demand on Crude oil, correct?

The technology for using any of of the NG's already exist. Out in the boonies here, propane is used as a fuel for cars. We also have a government initiative to use Hydrogen and electric. We are just starting to get hybrid car tax advantages here. So its not that much of a stress. LNG tanker fleets are growing at extremely high numbers to compensate for this already. Governments are already putting out initiatives. Technology research is being geared more and more towards oil. That's a lot of effort from many different angles.

Some structural problems, but people tend to adapt pretty fast. And the faster we do, the more market share someone would end up with... so it should be real fast.

I don't know enough about fractional distillation to say positively, but from what I understand, chemical treatment can change the length of the hydro-carbons, changing low grade fuels to high grade fuels, and vice versa. Cost and chemical requirements aside, anyway.
We don't seem to have "cheap and abundant" methane sources at the moment, not enough so to be driving such changes anyway. And it doesn't appear to be getting cheaper, either.

[ptGatsby]

We don't seem to have "cheap and abundant" methane sources at the moment, not enough so to be driving such changes anyway. And it doesn't appear to be getting cheaper, either.


True enough. As it stands, there are no replacements because there is no need for one.

My emphasis is on the potential. There are many ways to approach the problem and it already is happening.

The question "When do you let it change your life?" is still my focus. There is insufficient information and too many positive alternative factors for me to worry yet.

Doesn't mean I'm correct, only that this will have a very minor influence on my actions.