The Latest News
Connect with Us
Notable Releases
1 FREE Audiobook RISK-FREE from Audible
From the Store
Warriors
Warriors
Amazon.com Hardcover
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


We are at the peak in world oil production...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
402 replies to this topic

#1 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:37 AM

... and growth is over because of it. Or, if you prefer, growth as we've known it, ... a growth rate for which increasingly unfettered capitalism utterly relies.... is over.

It will get worse, and we had better start beginning to design global policy based on a world with a little bit less each year. Certainly, it will be a painful transition, but the geology (and the economics) are in.

There seems to be a visceral reaction to that premise - that growth is over - usually it comes without much critical analysis being applied. It's almost a default response, both from the majority of the left AND the right. Our survival instinct kicks in, and we gravitate towards viewpoints of optimism and hope and away from sobering reality and hard arithmetic. The idea that the Earth has natural limits is something they may indeed grasp, but the rationalization they use is "ok, but it's not here yet." ... Then there are those who actually accept that peak is here, but insist that it doesn't matter because the free market will endure, and price-point incentive to alternatives will arise in short order.  ... The former denies known arithmetic, the latter attempts to assert that finance trumps physics and that transition time will be seamless. Both discount a dying world economy as merely "temporary."

In this thread, I will attempt to challenge those two lines of thinking.

Quote

energy is the ability to do actual work... money only represents that ability.

Those who scoff that oil depletion is a problem like to apply ever-changing definitions to what peak oil actually means, so they can object to deviations in the model as they choose to frame it. Some insist "we" are saying that peak is about the resource volume as a whole in the long history of this tiny green planet, ... others insist "we" are saying it's about the near-impossible-to-define point when supply can no longer meet demand. Still others want to tell us our argument is about the apex in world production. There are elements of all those angles, and buttress the theme as a whole. We can debate any of those definitions, but the math still isn't good for denialists in any of those cases. ... Regardless, "peak oil" suffers a murky definition at this point, partly due to willful disinformation. ... So,  to avoid confusion, and perhaps mitigate the endless stream of straw man creation, I like to define peak oil as the point where shrinking net energy sends the world into perpetual recession (or worse). I don't think anyone denies that global growth has plummeted since the 2007 "real estate" crash. In fact, since 2007, U.S. GDP is averaging 0.7. From post-WW2 to 2006, it averaged something like 3.4%. To me, 0.7, across a 5-year sample size? That's a problem. Some can cling to the literal definition of recession as two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but some of us know that's nonsense - by itself - and that GDP isn't even the lone metric of global growth. .... In any event, we are riding along the peak of world crude and condensate (the good stuff) production really since 2005, and there are no indications it can go any higher. We are maintaining minuscule production growth within the category the EIA likes to call "all liquids" by way of less energy dense alternatives that return a shrinking EROEI the more we have to rely on them. Light Saudi crude is NOT heavy Bakken/Orinoco low-viscosity crude, not by a long shot. Many people seem to lose sight of that fact when engaging in this subject material. In short, net energy is all that matters -- energy returned on energy invested (EROEI).

So, we know things are bad, and don't seem to be getting appreciatively better.... Europe is on the brink, China's growth has nose-dived, real U.S. unemployment is pathetic, tWoT is it's own perpetual feed loop, and civil unrest is almost everywhere, especially in key oil-producing nations. ... Municipalities grow insolvent, housing markets show no sustained signs of improvement, and grocery inflation suffers no end in sight.  ... In taking in a big whiff of all that's currently sick about the world economy, some still want to insist it's all due to shady banking. I say Wall St. corruption only tells a fraction of the story.

Skeptics want to insist that spiking oil price points had nothing (or little) to do with 2008 credit crash. I can rely on a mountain of evidence - both direct and circumstantial - asserting that oil price had almost everything to do with it. The horrible loans within a corrupt Wall St. paradigm were certainly a big factor, but our version of unfettered capitalism has been shady for many, many decades. It took unique circumstances for the curtain to be raised on just how insidious and rapacious our great ponzi scheme truly is.

Quote


"cheap energy dictates to the markets, not the other way around..."

In its essence, outstanding debts are what if not borrowed future growth? Can we agree on that much? I'd hope so.  Growth, ultimately, is fueled by cheap resources.  What happens when there no longer is that decades-old promise of "more tomorrow?" ....  Fiat money does not work the same if energy prices increase perpetually.  As Nate Hagens, former EiC at theoildrum.com said this month at the annual ASPO conference:

"Money is created through loan. Before, this wasn't a problem. Money was scarce and there were many opportunities; now this has changed. Debt is a reallocation of resources over space and time: from the periphery to the center and from future to present generations. ... Now, every dollar of debt produces only a dollar or less. The problem is that standard economists thought that oil would behave like any other product - become cheaper and cheaper. Without debt we would be in (literal) recession since 2008 - what we do now will make the fall sooner and steeper."


(Emphasis mine)


The 2008 debt crash climaxed in Sept., a few months after of a spike to $143 per barrel. In January of that year, many non-conformist economists and most energy analysts were predicting a massive collapse in the fall of that year for the following reasons:



Peak Oil and the Financial Markets: A Forecast for 2008

1. Many monoline bond insurers will be downgraded in 2008, and some may fail.
2. More and more people influential in financial markets will begin to recognize peak oil.

3. Long term loans, including those for energy companies, are likely to become less available as awareness of peak oil rises.
4. There is likely to be a serious recession in 2008, deepening as the year goes on.
5. At least several large banks will fail.
6. The amount of debt available to consumers is likely to decline.
7. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may need government assistance.
8. A new class of homes -- those "never to be sold" -- will emerge.
9. Politicians will continue to make attempts to help homeowners, and perhaps other types of borrowers.
10. The amount of structured (sliced and diced) debt issued is likely to drop to close to zero.
11. Besides banks, many other players in financial markets are likely to find themselves in financial difficulty in 2008.
12. The value of the dollar will fall relative to some currencies, causing the relative price of oil to rise.
13. The stock market probably will decline during 2008.
14. Prices are likely to rise in 2008 for food and energy products. Prices may decline for homes and non-essential goods and services.
15. There is a chance that some type of discontinuity will make financial conditions suddenly take a turn for the worse.


"Once financial markets begin to recognize peak oil, I expect lenders will be more wary of long-term loans, because of uncertainty that these loans will be repaid once world oil production has begun to decline. Interest rates are likely to rise. Marginal borrowers may not be able to find credit at all. All of these effects are likely to make the gridlock in loans progressively greater over time.


The Fed may attempt to lower interest rates, but as defaults grow and lenders become more aware of peak oil, the risk margin for defaults included in interest rates will tend to rise. Thus, the actual interest rates charged to consumers and businesses may not decline, even when the Fed lowers target interest rates.


I don't expect the recognition of peak oil in financial markets to be complete in 2008, especially if a credit crisis causes oil prices to drop. Once peak oil is fully recognized though (most likely when its effects are very apparent, and mitigation is clearly not working), long-term debt may become unavailable, even for governments."


In the next few posts, when time allows... I will cover 1) the data - why we know peak is here already;  and 2) why free market price points will not create game-changing alternatives.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 02:58 AM.


#2 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:55 AM

*edit:  ... it's important to note that it's the longer-term price trend of oil that matters, .... and that price dips amid wild volatility - as the kind we're currently experiencing - are more an indication of demand destruction and short-term stoarage glut. .... The longer term trend is up, up, up... And people on my side of the fence insist oil price is rising because world demand for oil has finally begun to outstrip mankind's capacity to bring it to market. In that sense, we also believe predictions of upper price margins are somewhat useless, because the world will never be able to afford $200 oil before sending the global economy into cardiac arrest. Recession is axiomatic of every oil price shock since WW2.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 03:01 AM.


#3 Solmyr

Solmyr

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,001 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:18 AM

Man all that pessimism about peak oil really got to me - going out for a drive in the park to contemplate.

#4 Darth Arya

Darth Arya

    Heir to Winterfell and Dark Lord of the Sith

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,846 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:33 AM

Yeah Peak Oil is a scary thing, particularly as we just dont have any credible alternatives to it, it is used for a lot more than putting fuel in your car.

#5 Masonity

Masonity

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM

So you chose to define "peak oil" as "the point in which a huge market bubble combined with bad public policy around the world causes us to go into a recession, and perhaps potentially a depression", rather than using a definition that can be directly linked to oil itself?


I'm afraid to say you can't just state "I think the housing bubble and financial market collapse is bollocks, it's all peak oil really" and just expect us to take that at face value.

You should have addressed why exactly we are at peak oil now first. Because until you do so, there's little value in any of your claims.


edit: To elaborate further, surely it's fairly obvious that the financial problems facing the world right now are to do with liquidity, not cost. We aren't seeing output fall because production costs have soared too high. We're seeing it fall because there isn't enough liquidity, so even companies that are overall profitable are forced under during cyclical cashflow issues.

If this was peak oil, surely we'd be seeing rampant, huge inflation, and companies shutting down left right and centre due to soaring costs rather than due to the fact that the overdraft they relied on during certain parts of the year was taken away, new loans for expansion or machine replacement aren't available (even though both would be supportable in the long term if immediate cash was there)  and lowered consumption as a circular issue, with a recession meaning less jobs, available money and spending power, and thus less consumption, less sales, and thus less cash flow available.

We passed peak CREDIT, or peak Cashflow. Not peak oil. Thankfully cash and credit are pretty much imagined things with no tangible limits, so unlike peak oil it isn't the end of the line.

Edited by Masonity, 26 June 2012 - 03:41 AM.


#6 Solmyr

Solmyr

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,001 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:38 AM

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

You should have addressed why exactly we are at peak oil now first.
Cuz we need bigger drills? :idea:

#7 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:40 AM

So, how do we know peak oil is finally here when it wasn't actually here in 1945, 1975, 1995, etc., despite the assertions (often misunderstood by the critics) of entities like MIT's Club of Rome, and M. King Hubbert? Well, I would say the biggest indicator would be the nose-dive in world discovery rates, which has plummeted since the mid 1960s.


http://planetforlife...lsituation.html
[img]http://planetforlife...inggap.jpg[/img]

See, you have to find more oil in order to extract it. We're not finding it much at all anymore. .... Just like U.S. production peaked (1970) some forty years after U.S. discovery (1930) peaked, the world follows suit. As you can see by the chart, world oil field discovery rates peaked in the mid- to late-1960s.

Other reasons we know we're at peak? Well, look at world exports as a whole, which are in perpetual decline. This touches to the demand side of the equation, whereby a developing nation may produce a bit more oil than it did a year ago, but its demand has increased even more, cutting into it's available export capacity. No where is this more transparent than the numbers out of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - the bellcow of global oil production that can inch forward with modest production increases, while it's own population's insatiable thirst for energy grows exponentially.


Pool of world oil exports dwindling


According to the US Energy Information Administration, one of the leading providers of global oil data, world oil exports reached a peak in 2005 at 43.4-million barrels per day (mbpd) and have declined every year since then by an average of 1.8% year. World crude oil exports totalled 40.2 mbpd on average in 2009, according to the latest available data. This represented 48% of total world oil production of 82.4 mbpd.



Another corroboration that peak is here comes from the mind-boggling array of global entities and energy monitoring bodies who have concluded so. ... Or, to be fair, that peak was anywhere from 2005 to 2015. Those include:

The U.S. Dept. of Energy - http://petrole.blog....ion-as-of-2011/
The Pentagon - http://www.fas.org/m...int/joe2010.pdf and http://www.guardian....oduction-supply
The International Energy Agency (long a well-documented peak denier) - http://www.easybours...-countries.html
The British Government  - http://www.energyand...oil-part-2/1122
Virgin Group - http://www.guardian....-peak-oil-close
Oxford University - http://www.energybul....net/node/52093
The International Monetary Fund - http://www.guardian....ling-decade-imf


one might even conclude: The president of the United States, in some coded form:

"And, you know, interestingly enough, you're seeing the Saudis make significant investments both in their own country and outside of their country in clean energy, as well, because I think they recognize that ... we have a finite supply of oil."


I could go on and on with corroboration, but that's a good list to start with. Anyone attempting to dispute the premise would have to surmise how all those disparate groups are wrong, despite having arrived at the same basic conclusion.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 03:42 AM.


#8 KAH

KAH

    Omnia vincit labor

  • Board Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,221 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:44 AM

Yes. And no.

There are certainly basic truth to this - i.e., energy is essential to keep the economy going. Energy in the form of oil is finite. And growth certainly takes a hit when supply is choked off.

The high oil prices has had an exacerbating effect on all the other crap going in the financial world, and while demand-driven high oil prices will ease down with recessions, it's only a temporary reprieve, because the problem will be back with growth again - demand is a fly hitting a resource-constraint window in the ceiling.


But Peak Oil (or rather - temporarily - "Undulating Plateau Oil") now is preferrable to kicking the can further down, where the fall would be that much harder and steeper. The world will change, although I am rather doubtful that it will spell the utter end of capitalism. I am far more worried about the environmental consequences that will follow in the wake of things happening now.

Edited by KAH, 26 June 2012 - 03:47 AM.


#9 Ghiscari

Ghiscari

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:45 AM

You know not everything you read on the Internet is true, right?

#10 Masonity

Masonity

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:49 AM

http://www.ogj.com/a...nventional.html

More up to date than your 2008 geocities style website. More scientific than your 2008 geocities website (seriously, we're at peak oil because look at the graph showing us predict a downturn in new oil discoveries in the future? and totally ignoring that it's existing recoverable supplies that matter, not newly discovered total finds), and paints a slightly nicer picture. And that was 20 seconds of googling.


edit: And your "british government concurs" link doesn't link to any words spoken by a UK government official, let alone an actual enquiry paper or the like. If it isn't .gov.uk it probably isn't the british government...


edit: Oh great. A "coded" message from Obama? You are taking "Oil won't last forever and the middle east recognise this and are looking to the future" to mean "Oh shit, we're all out of black gold"? I guess I can just file this under crackpot and move away slowly.

Edited by Masonity, 26 June 2012 - 03:52 AM.


#11 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:55 AM

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

So you chose to define "peak oil" as "the point in which a huge market bubble combined with bad public policy around the world causes us to go into a recession, and perhaps potentially a depression", rather than using a definition that can be directly linked to oil itself?

No, that would be a straw man argument that I didn't actually offer at all.

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

I'm afraid to say you can't just state "I think the housing bubble and financial market collapse is bollocks, it's all peak oil really" and just expect us to take that at face value.

Unfortunately, that's not what I said.

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

You should have addressed why exactly we are at peak oil now first. Because until you do so, there's little value in any of your claims.

You allowed for an entire hour before demanding that, even though I said it was coming?

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

edit: To elaborate further, surely it's fairly obvious that the financial problems facing the world right now are to do with liquidity, not cost. We aren't seeing output fall because production costs have soared too high. We're seeing it fall because there isn't enough liquidity, so even companies that are overall profitable are forced under during cyclical cashflow issues.

If this was peak oil, surely we'd be seeing rampant, huge inflation, and companies shutting down left right and centre due to soaring costs rather than due to the fact that the overdraft they relied on during certain parts of the year was taken away, new loans for expansion or machine replacement aren't available (even though both would be supportable in the long term if immediate cash was there)  and lowered consumption as a circular issue, with a recession meaning less jobs, available money and spending power, and thus less consumption, less sales, and thus less cash flow available.

causation vs. correlation.

Are those things not happening? I'd say they don't refute the model. They only underline it.

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

We passed peak CREDIT, or peak Cashflow. Not peak oil. Thankfully cash and credit are pretty much imagined things with no tangible limits, so unlike peak oil it isn't the end of the line.

So the data above is wrong? They're all lying?

#12 Masonity

Masonity

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:02 AM

View PostTitus Pullo, on 26 June 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

So the data above is wrong? They're all lying?

I clicked a couple of links and found you wrongly attributed one thing to the British Government, even though it was actually written by a "self taught energy expert" who's entire celebrity status rests on the claim of peak oil... And another from a biassed organisation which relied on their own predicted data to make it's claim, even though there will now be actual data available for said time.

Sorry. I'm writing this off as Peak Bullshit until you start attributing things to their actual sources, and not just throwing in "The British Government" (who surprisingly aren't run by Chris Nelder!) or "Obama even though he wasn't talking about peak oil or making any medium term predictions, but just outlining the fact that there will be a peak oil and that oil rich countries are currently making plans to ensure they are still rich once oil goes away".

#13 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:11 AM

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

http://www.ogj.com/a...nventional.html

More up to date than your 2008 geocities style website. More scientific than your 2008 geocities website (seriously, we're at peak oil because look at the graph showing us predict a downturn in new oil discoveries in the future? and totally ignoring that it's existing recoverable supplies that matter, not newly discovered total finds), and paints a slightly nicer picture. And that was 20 seconds of googling.

The downturn has been going on for 40 years, as shown in the graph you're curiously complaining about, and you focus only on the extrapolation going forward? Do you deny that discovery rates have plummeted since the 1960s? Because the EIA would love to hear from you on how they're somehow wrong. Want other links confirming the descent of discovery rates? They're public domain, and all sources emanate from IEA and US DoE data.

Regardless, your link - from the oil industry itself, mind you - says a lot about estimated, technically recoverable reserves, and absolutely nothing of provable, economically recoverable reserves. It's the latter that matter. The former is delicious for market confidence, and not much else. Do better please.

As I've said: I can claim my company has "found" a quadrillion barrels behind the moon, but that says nothing of the feasibility of bringing it to market.

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

edit: And your "british government concurs" link doesn't link to any words spoken by a UK government official, let alone an actual enquiry paper or the like. If it isn't .gov.uk it probably isn't the british government...

Take your pick. Their energy task force, their Sec. of Energy. Their tax-funded "Oil Shock Response Plan."


British Government Faces Up To Peak Oil



View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

edit: Oh great. A "coded" message from Obama? You are taking "Oil won't last forever and the middle east recognise this and are looking to the future" to mean "Oh shit, we're all out of black gold"?

Never said that either. It's not about "running out." ... You truly are a straw man champion, aren't you?  Regardless, Obama has said much more on the issue, even if his political agenda hasn't matched the urgency yet:

http://www.nytimes.c...=3&ref=politics
“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight.”

View PostMasonity, on 26 June 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

I guess I can just file this under crackpot and move away slowly.

LOL... As I said in the original post, the premise brings a visceral reaction from those who won't apply reason and hit the default straw man button over and over.

So again, all those entities are wrong? How? And why are they misinforming the public in such a wrong-headed manner? None of them have been fired for some kind of actions detrimental to humanity? Gosh, why?

You disputed one of being related to the UK government, even though they reported to it, ignoring the UK Sec. of Energy in the process. Super. What about the Pentagon? The US DoE? Fatih Birol of the IEA? ...See, you don't get to play a semantics game with one entity and ignore the unified conclusions of all the rest. I mean, you can, but your ploy of obfuscation doesn't work very well at all ... Are they wrong or not? If so, where's the light crude? ... Big Oil and OPEC would love to hear from you.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 04:32 AM.


#14 MinDonner

MinDonner

    A cat of a different coat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,493 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM

Not really seeing what the point of this thread is.

Is oil going to run out eventually? Yes.

Now, there are many follow-up questions that would be useful to ask here. How long do we have? What's the best way to deal with it? How can we make our reserves last longer? What sort of changes are likely to happen to society when our energy supply changes?

However, this thread appears to be the internet equivalent of a guy running round going "the end is nigh!". Is the purpose just to get people to agree with your bizarre hypothesis that the housing crash was caused by oil and not banks? Or to start digging our bunkers and stocking up on canned goods? Where is the discussion here?

#15 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:29 AM

View PostMinDonner, on 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Not really seeing what the point of this thread is.

Ummm... to debate about the fact that peak is now and only plateau and decline are to follow? Kind of a big deal.

View PostMinDonner, on 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Is oil going to run out eventually? Yes.

No one said anything about "run out." At this point, it's clear you don't want to have an honest discussion of the topic.

View PostMinDonner, on 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Now, there are many follow-up questions that would be useful to ask here. How long do we have? What's the best way to deal with it? How can we make our reserves last longer? What sort of changes are likely to happen to society when our energy supply changes?

Pretty sure I acknowledged that I would cover "time frame" soon in the original post. You actually read it before commenting, right? Can I get a bit of time to deal with the initial claim first?

View PostMinDonner, on 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

However, this thread appears to be the internet equivalent of a guy running round going "the end is nigh!". Is the purpose just to get people to agree with your bizarre hypothesis that the housing crash was caused by oil and not banks? Or to start digging our bunkers and stocking up on canned goods? Where is the discussion here?

Sometimes the visceral reaction comes in the form of trollish ridicule and a complete avoidance of the facts presented. Good job!

Why don't you acknowledge, first, whether or not you agree that peak is here in this 10-year window of 2005-2015 as the entities listed have acknowledged. That would be a great start for you, because that's where the discussion IS.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 04:48 AM.


#16 felice

felice

    just the girl next door

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,290 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:31 AM

View PostMinDonner, on 26 June 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Now, there are many follow-up questions that would be useful to ask here. How long do we have?

Scarily little time. I would be very surprised if we make it to the next decade.

Quote

What's the best way to deal with it?

What's required is virtually unthinkably massive changes to pretty much everything. But the biggest problem is getting the people in charge to take any meaningful action at all, and I'm at a loss as to how to achieve that. If we keep on the way we're going now, the consequences are going to be very messy and painful.

Quote

However, this thread appears to be the internet equivalent of a guy running round going "the end is nigh!"... Where is the discussion here?

Discussion comes after there's consensus on the axioms.

#17 Hereward

Hereward

    Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,717 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:35 AM

View PostTitus Pullo, on 26 June 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Take your pick. Their energy task force, their Sec. of Energy. Their tax-funded "Oil Shock Response Plan."

The former secretary of energy met with a group of lobbyists and decided to institute a risk assessment of whether this was an imminent threat and, if so, what could be done, and this is proof in your world? Hurrah for critical thinking.

#18 Titus Pullo

Titus Pullo

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:54 AM

View PostHereward, on 26 June 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

The former secretary of energy met with a group of lobbyists and decided to institute a risk assessment of whether this was an imminent threat and, if so, what could be done, and this is proof in your world? Hurrah for critical thinking.

No, the consensus of theirs as a whole - the UK, the Germans, the IEA, the Pentagon, the US DoE, the IMF, ASPO, Virgin Group, Oxford U., Total Oil of France, Chevron's reserve data and countless wikileaks cables  - is "proof in my world." .... If not yours, apply critical thinking and tell us why they're wrong.  More "proof in my world" comes from the Joint Chiefs of the U.S. military, as per the link above:


The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact.

The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.

"By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: "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, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China andIndia."


I'd say spare production capacity IS about gone, considering the contraints during Libya and the KoS's inability to pump more upon request. ... Further, a shortfall of 10 million bpd - as the Joint Chiefs are clearly concerned about - would be the deathknell of the global economy. Does anyone dispute this if such a scenario hit?

As always, the Pentagon remains a considerable beacon of forward-thinking on energy concerns, always has been.

Edited by Titus Pullo, 26 June 2012 - 05:01 AM.


#19 Roose Bolton's Pet Leech

Roose Bolton's Pet Leech

    Blood-sucking Aristocrat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,892 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:58 AM

Yes, the limitation of dwindling fossil fuels is a serious long term restraint on the global economy.

No, it had nothing to do with the current mess. If anything, the post-2008 global economy has helped lower carbon emissions (far more effectively than most countries were managing pre-2008), and diminished demand for oil, resulting in decline of oil prices. By contrast, a Peak Oil crisis would see skyrocketing oil prices, shortages, and inflation.

In other words, correlation does not imply causation, and it's the 1930s we're reliving, not the 1970s.

#20 Hereward

Hereward

    Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,717 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 04:58 AM

I can't tell you why they are wrong, because they haven't said what you are claiming they have said. Look at the UK link you posted again and reread it. You seem to have a problem with the words "might", "could" and "would". Many groups are looking at the possibility of that which you state as incontravertible fact. That doesn't mean they accept your claims, merely that they are looking at mitigation if the worst comes to the worst.