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

[felice]

We have alternatives that could easily be rolled out to replace oil, the more expensive option, hydrogen or the cheaper one, Nat Gas.

Hydrogen is a battery component, not a fuel. Natural Gas is also a finite resource, and increasing extraction rates will bring Peak Gas faster.

More importantly though is the fact we aren't at peak oil, or near it we still have years before we hit it. Hence why proven supplies are rising in many non-opec countries.

There are only two non-OPEC countries claiming oil reserves of more than a single year's global supply. And for some mysterious reason, OPEC's claimed reserves always go up, never down, despite no significant new finds and producing billions of barrels every year.

That said, there are enormous unconventional reserves that we've known about for a long time but didn't have the technology (or high enough oil prices) to extract.

Unconventional reserves are unconventional for a reason. It's not the financial cost of extraction that's the problem, it's the energy cost. If it takes more energy to extract, process, and deliver it than is gained by using it, then it's never going to be viable at any price. And there are limits to how efficient we can get at extraction.

We're not going to suddenly find ourselves unable to run cars. Instead, we'll get steadily increasing fuel costs forcing us away from the the sprawl and suburbia that's been the norm for the past 50 years.

And the economic effects of that aren't going to be fun. For a start, the value of suburban houses is going to plummet to nearly nothing. Residents won't be able to sell their houses, banks will find they have no security on their mortgages. And it's not just travel costs that will go up, but everything that needs to be transported to get to shops (ie everything), and especially anything made from plastic, or grown using fertilizer or pesticides, or with significant energy expended in its production (ie most things). And massive construction will be needed to provide all the inner city housing needed for the destitute exiles from suburbia - which will take a lot of energy.

And in the short term, beyond a certain point demand for oil is relatively inelastic; people can't not go to work, no matter how much a tank of gas costs, and public transport isn't an option for most (even where it exists it doesn't have the capacity). So actual shortages are entirely possible, especially in countries that can't threaten to nuke the suppliers if they don't get the oil they want (I suspect NZ will have more trouble acquiring oil on the global market than the US).

I'd worry about global warming before peak oil.

I'd worry about them at the same time; they're likely to interact in most unpleasant ways.

Can't speak about the oil crisis as I don't know too much about it, but we'll survive. We always do.

Well, some of us, probably. I'm not entirely sure whether I'd like to be amongst the survivors or not.

[felice]

I don't know if this alone demonstrates that we're not at peak, but there sure do seem to be a lot of new discoveries:

http://www.realclear...veries____.html

US oil consumption: 19,150,000 barrels per day. Spectacular new world-leading US discoveries for 2012: 300,000 barrels per day. Net US oil consumption after discoveries: 18,850,000 barrels per day. Well, that clearly makes all the difference; no need to worry about peak oil now!

[felice]

Indeed. The discoveries are presented as important developments in the media, but they're effectively irrelevant; the rate of discovery is so far below the rate of consumption that it's not unreasonable to say that in practice, there are no new discoveries and what we've got now is all there is. And what we've got now is most likely a lot less than OPEC claims.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Your number are off. It says an increase of 300,000 barrels per day of supply. It's unclear if they meant new discoveries or production increases. On one hand, the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian are hardly new discoveries, on the other the article doesn't mention increases in production from Saudi Arabia, Libya or Iraq.

ETA: either way, they're quoting production capacity, not reserves.

You're off by a little on unconventionals. The key concern is cost. None of the current unconventional technologies require more energy to extract than is produced. Even kerogen shale is a net positive from a thermodynamic standpoint while fracturing shale oil resevoirs is economic at around $70/bbl. Again, new discoveries are not as relevant since there's vastly more oil in unconventional than conventional resevoirs. (Unconventional here meaning tight, shale, sand, and deepwater) These resevoirs have been known for decades, but it's only in the last couple years that we've been able to extract them. Right now the US is leading the world in exploiting them, but other countries will catch up. Russia's been doing small fracs for years, Saudi Arabia has had great recent results from fraccing and China has the largest shale gas reserves in the world.

[Titus Pullo]

I don't know if this alone demonstrates that we're not at peak, but there sure do seem to be a lot of new discoveries:

http://www.realclear...veries____.html

Again, what articles like that are alluding to are fields of crap oil for which the production rate is painfully slow. When it comes to unconventional reserves, what matters is production rate. Not some mesmerizing reserve volume some entity can "prove" exists (in a desperate effort to maintain investment).

Even tripling our domestic production of this junk -- baked and/or cracked from massive rock and clay formations at enormous input and environmental cost -- isn't going to make the slightest dent in atoning for dying existing capacity of sweet, light crude (the latter of which is far more efficient, anyway).

Any way you slice it, dwindling supply can no longer meet rising demand. If you the kind of person who advocates pricing certain segments out of the market entirely, well... ok... but the ramifications of that (war, riots, famine) still confirm peak oil, they don't refute it.

[What Is Dead Already Died]

Note: Why Wikipedia is every link since some people still question Wikipedia legitimacy. I’m a trader, I following these things and know them. This is the internet so that claim is worth little but I don’t wanna hunt down individual sources, hence wiki links. Luckily, Wikipedia cities almost everything so it can be back checked further should anyone desire. I just can’t stand lots of incorrect info being disseminated, especially in a forum with a maturity level such as this.

Hydrogen is a battery component, not a fuel. Natural Gas is also a finite resource, and increasing extraction rates will bring Peak Gas faster.

Compressed hydrogen is used to fill up cars that use hydrogen fuel cells, and they have hydrogen gas stations here in cali.

http://en.wikipedia....nda_FCX_Clarity

http://en.wikipedia....ydrogen_station

Nat Gas is a finite resource, as all resources are. Luckily there is a ton, with USA being the KSA of Nat Gas and USA is only 5th. There is currently estimated to be 300 trillion cubic meters of proven reserves worldwide. Also since nat gas cars get comparable mileage to their gasoline alternatives we can assume that we at least have cars covered. So while finite, not in terms of human generations.

http://en.wikipedia....proven_reserves

There are only two non-OPEC countries claiming oil reserves of more than a single year's global supply. And for some mysterious reason, OPEC's claimed reserves always go up, never down, despite no significant new finds and producing billions of barrels every year.

Many people believe certain OPEC countries lie about their reserves; this isn’t a secret to anyone. Regardless, the main reason reserves in general increase is because higher prices & new tech allow previously unrecoverable oil to be economically recoverable and hence added to current reserves. The smart money bets in places like the Oil Sands tech & price will continue to advance freeing up even more oil.

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

Besides that there are new large finds in OPEC and non-OPEC nations. Kurdistan is a new hotbed for oil activity.

http://en.wikipedia....neral_resources

Also Venezuela, Brazil, and Canada are 3 that deserve attention for large increased in their estimated proven and unproven reserves during the last decade (less for Venezuela in particular).

http://en.wikipedia....es_in_Venezuela

http://en.wikipedia....erves_in_Canada

http://en.wikipedia....eld_discoveries

Unconventional reserves are unconventional for a reason. It's not the financial cost of extraction that's the problem, it's the energy cost. If it takes more energy to extract, process, and deliver it than is gained by using it, then it's never going to be viable at any price. And there are limits to how efficient we can get at extraction.

No its no the energy cost, its not the financial cost, it’s the simple fact it isn’t extracted from a conventional oil wells, hence Unconventional. Like I previously said about Oil Sands, Tech & Higher price equal new extration in previously unrecoverable oil. More so there is now a whole sub-sect of oil companies that buy old fields from the majors (Exxon, Shell, Etc.) and using new techniques extract more oil from them even in some that have previously been declining production for years.

http://en.wikipedia....onventional_oil

And the economic effects of that aren't going to be fun. For a start, the value of suburban houses is going to plummet to nearly nothing. Residents won't be able to sell their houses, banks will find they have no security on their mortgages. And it's not just travel costs that will go up, but everything that needs to be transported to get to shops (ie everything), and especially anything made from plastic, or grown using fertilizer or pesticides, or with significant energy expended in its production (ie most things). And massive construction will be needed to provide all the inner city housing needed for the destitute exiles from suburbia - which will take a lot of energy.

And in the short term, beyond a certain point demand for oil is relatively inelastic; people can't not go to work, no matter how much a tank of gas costs, and public transport isn't an option for most (even where it exists it doesn't have the capacity). So actual shortages are entirely possible, especially in countries that can't threaten to nuke the suppliers if they don't get the oil they want (I suspect NZ will have more trouble acquiring oil on the global market than the US).

First, most of this is just wild speculation. Banks will find they have no security on their mortgages? I honestly have no idea what that even means, banks with mortgages own the house, it’s the people who take out mortgages who wouldn’t have security. Actual shortages can exist and have more then once, 67 & 73. Guess what? Civilization didn’t collapse, everything we knew didn’t change. We just bitched and got past it

What will happen, which has happened since the beginning of man. Oil will get more expensive, and start causing pain opening the opportunity for the civilized worlds next fuel source. We already have sufficient tech to wean the world off oil, just no incentive minus politicians and activists telling us to go green.

http://en.wikipedia....967_Oil_Embargo

http://en.wikipedia....1973_oil_crisis

[Titus Pullo]

And what we've got now is most likely a lot less than OPEC claims.

^ so very this ^

Note the sudden doubling of stated reserve totals by some dozen Middle East nations in unison during the 80s, based on nothing.

OPEC member’s quotas are proportional to their proven reserves. Since the larger the quota, the more money they can earn, this obviously gave them a strong incentive to ‘adjust’ their figures. Kuwait began first in 1984 with the others following mainly in 1987 (Saudi in 89).

Most serious of all, he and other oil depletion analysts and petroleum geologists, most of whom have been in the industry for years, accuse the US of using questionable statistical probability models to calculate global reserves and Opec countries of drastically revising upwards their reserves in the 1980s.

"The estimates for the Opec countries were systematically

exaggerated in the late 1980s to win a greater slice of the allocation cake

. Middle East official reserves jumped 43% in just three years despite no new major finds," he says.

This myth was confirmed, most recently, by the Wikileaks cable of last year:

US diplomat convinced by Saudi expert that reserves of world's biggest oil exporter have been overstated by nearly 40%

[Titus Pullo]

Many people believe certain OPEC countries lie about their reserves; this isn’t a secret to anyone. Regardless, the main reason reserves in general increase is because higher prices & new tech allow previously unrecoverable oil to be economically recoverable and hence added to current reserves. The smart money bets in places like the Oil Sands tech & price will continue to advance freeing up even more oil.

Yes, everyone gets this concept. In fact, we've been over it a number of times already. The problem - one that finance-fixes-all people never seem to acknowledge - is that eventually price points get to a level that the average consumer/small business/municipality can no longer afford the product. Then, with crushed demand due to recession, the price dips again below the "acceptable level" for unconventional investment. Rinse, repeat.

No its no the energy cost,

Really? So net energy and EROEI don't matter, I guess. The USGS, the IEA and the U.S. Dept. of Energy will be so pleased.

its not the financial cost, it’s the simple fact it isn’t extracted from a conventional oil wells, hence Unconventional. Like I previously said about Oil Sands, Tech & Higher price equal new extration in previously unrecoverable oil. More so there is now a whole sub-sect of oil companies that buy old fields from the majors (Exxon, Shell, Etc.) and using new techniques extract more oil from them even in some that have previously been declining production for years.

http://en.wikipedia....onventional_oil

You appear to be assuming that the logistics of expanding the infrastructure of this technology is seamless and easy. It's not. It's a nightmare. And the sustained investment in an era of austerity is tenuous at best. Several companies have already gone bankrupt, and one of the biggest (Chesapeake) is in dire peril.

[KAH]

There will be a transition - or rather, transitions, plural. It will be more messy than most of us expect, but probably less messier than some expect.

One thing to take from the probably 40% overstated oil reserves of OPEC countries is that while they do not have as much oil as they claim, they still have a lot.

The R/P ratios of the OPEC countries are far higher than their non-OPEC oil producing counter parts. These numbers (a bit dated, but things do not change that much from the end of 2008) show as much.

And (importantly), when correcting for a 40% overstatement, OPEC (well, the Middle East) still would have R/P ratios far higher than, say, Russia, which still maintains stable oil production. That suggests significant scope for increased production on OPECs side. It does not remove the fact that a transition will come at some point, but it does suggest that the blow may not be as harsh as expected.

And yeah, it does give the "evil Arabs" a deal of leverage, but then, said Arabs like the oil dollar as much as anyone else. If some oil yuan get mixed up in that, so much the better for them.

That hints at another transition - the scope for ever-higher oil production IS very limited, which suggests that when China and India and the rest of the world bids for their share as their own wealth grows, the richer parts of the world will have to learn how to do with less.

It's gonna suck, but it's not like to be the end of the world. There will be years to do things differently than we do them today, to make us less dependent on oil, and to use what we use more efficiently.

[What Is Dead Already Died]

So we clearly are not gonna agree, which is a disappointment because Rome happens to be my favorite tv show.

Yes, everyone gets this concept. In fact, we've been over it a number of times already. The problem - one that finance-fixes-all people never seem to acknowledge - is that eventually price points get to a level that the average consumer/small business/municipality can no longer afford the product. Then, with crushed demand due to recession, the price dips again below the "acceptable level" for unconventional investment. Rinse, repeat.

Really? So net energy and EROEI don't matter, I guess. The USGS, the IEA and the U.S. Dept. of Energy will be so pleased.

You appear to be assuming that the logistics of expanding the infrastructure of this technology is seamless and easy. It's not. It's a nightmare. And the sustained investment in an era of austerity is tenuous at best. Several companies have already gone bankrupt, and one of the biggest (Chesapeake) is in dire peril.

You should re-read my post, the part about how when the prices of oil gets to a unsustainable level it opens and encourages news things to replace it at a lower level. Also No its not the energy cost is reference to the quote above it "

Unconventional reserves are unconventional for a reason. It's not the financial cost of extraction that's the problem, it's the energy cost."

Energy costs are important, but they apply to all types of oil extraction/power generation. Unconventional reserves do not have some special relationship with energy costs. As a rule they are higher then conventional oil, but cheaper then other types of power generation.

No where did I say it was easy, its not impossible either, not anymore then resigning new york city when the car came along. Specifically the benefit to things like hydrogen and nat gas is while the distribution system has to be overhauled, roads and our transportation infrastructure can stay the same. We're re-inviting the fuel not the car. I should have stated that implied was the assumption all these things take long amounts of time and economies rise and fall, people spend money where money can be made.

Finally glad you mentioned Chesapeake, the company currently under investigation by several agencies for illegal activities (which they are guilty of), with a CEO who many have been calling for an ouster and has had the reputation for a long time of using Chesapeake as a piggybank. Who also just had his yes-man bored torn apart replaced with babysitters for him, if he lasts through these new charges of price rigging, which he won't. Meanwhile other companies are just cutting back production because the nat gas of oil has plummeted because so many people rushed in to the new black gold rush, and then with more supply then demand the price dropped, so now supply is coming back inline

[felice]

Compressed hydrogen is used to fill up cars that use hydrogen fuel cells, and they have hydrogen gas stations here in cali.

Your point? The hydrogen gas stations need to get that hydrogen from somewhere, and the process that creates it uses more energy than the hydrogen outputs. And that energy comes from electricity plants, which mostly run on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is a type of battery, not an energy source like oil.

Nat Gas is a finite resource, as all resources are. Luckily there is a ton, with USA being the KSA of Nat Gas and USA is only 5th. There is currently estimated to be 300 trillion cubic meters of proven reserves worldwide.

And annual global consumption is nearly four trillion. In other words, it will all be gone before the end of the century at current rates. The peak will be reached much sooner, and the more we increase consumption to replace oil, the faster we get there.

Besides that there are new large finds in OPEC and non-OPEC nations. Kurdistan is a new hotbed for oil activity. http://en.wikipedia....neral_resources

Yeah, Kurdistan probably has enough oil to keep the world going for a bit over a year. I guess we can all relax now, crisis averted.

No its no the energy cost, its not the financial cost, it’s the simple fact it isn’t extracted from a conventional oil wells, hence Unconventional.

Yes, but the issue is why oil wells have conventionally been preferred. The more expensive energy gets, the more expensive it becomes to extract unconventional oil, which requires a lot more energy input than conventional oil. And there's the environmental effects, which we can't afford to ignore.

First, most of this is just wild speculation. Banks will find they have no security on their mortgages? I honestly have no idea what that even means, banks with mortgages own the house, it’s the people who take out mortgages who wouldn’t have security.

"Security" means the physical property that the bank can take possession of in the event that a borrower defaults on a loan. The banks will own worthless houses in deserted suburbia that they can't sell, and the people with mortgages will have no reason not to default (a lot of people will have no choice but to default, given the increasing cost of everything).

Actual shortages can exist and have more then once, 67 & 73. Guess what? Civilization didn’t collapse, everything we knew didn’t change. We just bitched and got past it

The actual decrease in oil consumption was negligible in 67 and 73; we've got much more severe shortages to look forward to, and they'll only get worse, rather than being tempoary glitches.

What will happen, which has happened since the beginning of man. Oil will get more expensive, and start causing pain opening the opportunity for the civilized worlds next fuel source. We already have sufficient tech to wean the world off oil, just no incentive minus politicians and activists telling us to go green.

It's possible we have the tech, but it can't be implemented overnight. It'll take a great deal of time and energy to build the necessary new tech infrastructure. I think you're massively underestimating just how much pain there'll be.

[felice]

Energy costs are important, but they apply to all types of oil extraction/power generation. Unconventional reserves do not have some special relationship with energy costs. As a rule they are higher then conventional oil, but cheaper then other types of power generation.

Really? What types of power generation have a lower EROEI than unconventional oil?

[Titus Pullo]

The actual decrease in oil consumption was negligible in 67 and 73; we've got much more severe shortages to look forward to, and they'll only get worse, rather than being tempoary glitches.

Not only that, but those crises back then were political... not geological like today.

It's like comparing apples to oranges, and a classic ploy of "see? everything worked out."

[Spring Bass]

Again, what articles like that are alluding to are fields of crap oil for which the production rate is painfully slow. When it comes to unconventional reserves, what matters is production rate. Not some mesmerizing reserve volume some entity can "prove" exists (in a desperate effort to maintain investment).

Even tripling our domestic production of this junk -- baked and/or cracked from massive rock and clay formations at enormous input and environmental cost -- isn't going to make the slightest dent in atoning for dying existing capacity of sweet, light crude (the latter of which is far more efficient, anyway).

It doesn't need to perfectly replace the existing supply of crude. It just needs to provide a supply of oil at increasingly higher prices long enough for societies to adjust to scarcer, more expensive oil. Something which is entirely possible - there are significant variations in oil consumption between developed countries, and the US wasn't nearly as dependent on oil for fuel before the post-war period.

Besides, EROEI is a red herring. We've got no lack of energy, and oil is just a particularly convenient way of transporting it. If necessary, we could convert stuff to liquid fuels at an energy loss and it would still work (in fact, that's basically what the "Hydrogen Economy" is).

Any way you slice it, dwindling supply can no longer meet rising demand. If you the kind of person who advocates pricing certain segments out of the market entirely, well... ok... but the ramifications of that (war, riots, famine) still confirm peak oil, they don't refute it.

Slowly (and inconsistently) rising oil prices are going to cause "war, riots, famine"? Color me skeptical. The inflation-adjusted price of oil literally tripled between 2002 and 2012. I'd say the world is pretty good at compensation for serious increases in the price of oil.

[felice]

It doesn't need to perfectly replace the existing supply of crude. It just needs to provide a supply of oil at increasingly higher prices long enough for societies to adjust to scarcer, more expensive oil. Something which is entirely possible - there are significant variations in oil consumption between developed countries, and the US wasn't nearly as dependent on oil for fuel before the post-war period.

Possibly technically true, but I don't see a return to a 1930s standard of living as something the US is likely to be happy about. And I suspect a continued supply of oil at increasingly higher prices will just delay real action to deal with the oil crisis even further.

Besides, EROEI is a red herring. We've got no lack of energy

Seriously? Where is all this energy?

Slowly (and inconsistently) rising oil prices are going to cause "war, riots, famine"? Color me skeptical.

No, rapidly and consistently rising oil prices will. Slow and inconsistent is what we have now, around the top of the peak; the real problems start when we begin heading down the far side, and supply can't meet demand at any price.

The inflation-adjusted price of oil literally tripled between 2002 and 2012. I'd say the world is pretty good at compensation for serious increases in the price of oil.

And how's the global economy been doing recently? How well do you think it will compensate for the price of oil tripling again? And yet again?

[KAH]

Seriously? Where is all this energy?

Coal, in particular.

Which is why I am more worried about the environmental effects. It's one thing to talk sweetly about the environment when everything is going well, but facing recessions or worse, environmental concerns is like to be put on the backburner almost indefinitely.

Natural gas is better than coal in that respect, but 'better' should not be confused with 'good'.

[Seli]

Coal, in particular.

Which is why I am more worried about the environmental effects. It's one thing to talk sweetly about the environment when everything is going well, but facing recessions or worse, environmental concerns is like to be put on the backburner almost indefinitely.

Natural gas is better than coal in that respect, but 'better' should not be confused with 'good'.

And loads of fissionables I believe. Of course those have a more immediately visible waste problem than fossil fuels.

[gryphon strike]

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.

If you really beleive that then there is a bridge in Sydney i would be interested in selling you.

For fuel there are numerous different and viable commodities some just happen to be things it is hard to distribute without infrastructure being built, like we did for petrol etc.

Oil to make plastic from, hmm let me think where would we get oil from ohh I don't know maybe from PLANTS, hemp is an excellent source of oil for making plastic and gee you can also make alcohol fuel from the leftovers and heck the seed is actually one of the best known foods containing 48 out of the basic 52 amino acids. Just about any plant will provide oil and the makings for alcohol or here is a truly novel idea how about we tap into say geothermal power or wave power and use that to create browns gas from water and use that to power cars etc?

So many alternatives and all people can do is complain because the scumbags in charge have and still are squashing these innovative ideas so they can make massive profits at our expense.

But please do not tell me there are no alternatives I suspect that Katherine was being sarcastic but cannot be certain.

[Titus Pullo]

If you really beleive that then there is a bridge in Sydney i would be interested in selling you.

For fuel there are numerous different and viable commodities some just happen to be things it is hard to distribute without infrastructure being built, like we did for petrol etc.

Oil to make plastic from, hmm let me think where would we get oil from ohh I don't know maybe from PLANTS, hemp is an excellent source of oil for making plastic and gee you can also make alcohol fuel from the leftovers and heck the seed is actually one of the best known foods containing 48 out of the basic 52 amino acids. Just about any plant will provide oil and the makings for alcohol or here is a truly novel idea how about we tap into say geothermal power or wave power and use that to create browns gas from water and use that to power cars etc?

So many alternatives and all people can do is complain because the scumbags in charge have and still are squashing these innovative ideas so they can make massive profits at our expense.

But please do not tell me there are no alternatives I suspect that Katherine was being sarcastic but cannot be certain.

So, in short, the oil and gas industry's meddling and subterfuge is the main reason we aren't running on algae and water by now? That's an interesting assessment. I admire your optimism regarding "easy" alternatives, but I don't think it's really that simple.

Plants and tidal? ... OK, two words (among many): Deforestation and rust. ... There's a reason we can't just switch the the age of oil over to something else, and it has nothing to do with any grand conspiracy. Oil is the most efficient and versatile natural resource mankind has ever harnessed, and we sit on a $100 trillion edifice of infrastructure, trade and agriculture built by it.

I just listened to Dennis Miller's latest HBO special, and he actually just said: "Oil? when we run out, we'll just think of something else and replace it." ... No Dennis. <knock> doesn't work that way. When you wait til it's a crisis, it's already too late.

[Titus Pullo]

Besides, EROEI is a red herring.

Fail.

Please google Chris Martenson's "Crash Course" series and afford yourself an hour of non-partisan enlightenment on the incontrovertible energy-environment-economy symbiosis. If you can't afford the time to absorb the whole presentation, at least do yourself the favor of watching sections 17a-c.

You'll be better off for it.

Slowly (and inconsistently) rising oil prices are going to cause "war, riots, famine"? Color me skeptical. The inflation-adjusted price of oil literally tripled between 2002 and 2012. I'd say the world is pretty good at compensation for serious increases in the price of oil.

Where do you live? Are you sure your nation presents the news honestly/sufficiently? Mine sure doesn't. You gotta work a bit to call yourself honestly informed about the conditions of the world the past decade or so. ... Let me tell you something, as someone who's been to such places as Argentina, Tunisia and Spain abroad, as well as Camden, NJ, Baltimore, Md. and Pahokee, Fla., domestically the past few years: It ain't pretty right now. And it's getting worse.

I'd say the world isn't compensating very well at all. And we're still at peak; production decline hasn't even begun yet.

I always laugh when people pretend how healthy the world is. It's usually as determined by that individual's ability to still afford the internet.