Peak Oil Doom and Gloom, or maybe not...

[Allen3]

Quote from Corey:

Sorry, you aren't so important as I stalk your every post and hang off your every word.

And in my opinion, they are currently a better economic alternative than many of the 'alternative' energies. With an entire industry and pipeline already in place, it is much easier to change the source than to change the industry.

I took a quick looksie at your old posts ...
You don't seem to deny that there is plenty of oil left. Your main concern seems to be our ability to access that oil at a rate that keeps up with our growing needs (I believe you used the metaphor of having $100B in the bank, but only being able to take out $100k a year).

In my humble opinion, I don't think the solution is to increase our rates of removal -- nothing can move exponentially -- but rather find solutions that supplement our rates, and find more efficient ways of utilizing the oil that we can withdraw. There is an abundance of oil ... we just need to figure out how to use it more efficiently.

So I suppose you could say that I do, in a sense, believe in peak oil. I do believe that consumption has surpassed rates of production -- any ECON 101 student can look at that by analyzing price of crude barrels (supply and demand, supply and demand...).

But the way peak oil is defined and sensationalized in the media is not the same 'peak oil' theory you are discussing. Perhaps the original concept is the one you are talking about -- but much like Global Warming, the media has skewed the story to create fear and terror to make it more interesting. We are not running out of oil ... we just might not be able to keep up with oil demands

Good post. Realistic without being Terroristic. Cudos! You don't see many posts like this on here.

JIM

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from Corey:

You don't seem to deny that there is plenty of oil left.

It is relative irrelevant, as long as you can not access it. The analogy was from the WSJ, but yes, if your maximum withdrawing speed is 2000$ a day from your bank, it is rather irrelevant that you have a million bucks account. (let's say you have to pay cash and no credit exist)

I don't think the solution is to increase our rates of removal -- nothing can move exponentially -- but rather find solutions that supplement our rates, and find more efficient ways of utilizing the oil that we can withdraw.

In theory it sounds great, in practice, when was the last time Congress pased a bill of the minimum mileage for cars per gallon?

There is an abundance of oil ... we just need to figure out how to use it more efficiently.

Everything is relative, there is an abundance of people who haven't even started to use oil yet....

So I suppose you could say that I do, in a sense, believe in peak oil.

Once I gave 3 different definitions for peak oil, let's quickly repeat it:

1. Relative peak per human: we passed peak in 1979. Since then humankind is multiplying faster then oilproduction.

2. Absolute peak: So far it has been in 2005 May. Until we surpass that it stands as peak.

3. Relative rate of speed: Consumption vs. production. Since 2006 the rate of consumption is growing faster than the rate of production, so it is just question of time, if this rate stays the same.

As you can see according to all 3 definition we have passed peak oil.

We are not running out of oil ...

We actually do. If nothing changes, we are out in 40-50 years. Do the math...

Of course, something has to give, so we still be using oil 50+ years from now....

 

[BostonKiller]

Quote from Corey:

But the way peak oil is defined and sensationalized in the media is not the same 'peak oil' theory you are discussing...
We are not running out of oil ... we just might not be able to keep up with oil demands

That's EXACTLY what Peak Oil is about...

 

[BostonKiller]

Quote from Corey:

We are not running out of oil ... we just might not be able to keep up with oil demands

PART Deux:

That's EXACTLY what Peak Oil is about...the best analogy to use would be that you won't need to lose all the water in your body to die from dehydration. A mere 10-15% would probably be enough.

Much like our body, our economy will not be able to remain stable (or to remain altogether) once the water (sorry, oil) supply is disrupted/decreased.

 

[Martin Gale]

I'm convinced that people who don't 'get' peak oil probably never made it past high school algebra. This is not meant to be a put down. Calculus is all about rate of change (the derivative of a function) and area under the curve (the integral of a function). Peak oil is all about when the derivative of the production curve goes to zero. That's the mathematical definition of a peak. It is not about when the integral of the production curve goes to zero. That would be the mathematical definition of running out.

Peak oil skeptics don't seem to understand that the rate of change is the issue. They keep harping on how much we have in the ground without seeming to realize that it don't mean squat if you can't get to it fast enough.

My analogy: Try sucking air through a straw. You are surrounded by air! But if you can't get enough air through your straw, you die. Well, all those holes we drill in the ground for oil are a bunch of straws. Those straws have limited flow. So we drill more straws to keep the flow rising with demand. But we've run low on places to poke the straws. Now, the overall flow is reaching a maximum, but demand keeps increasing.

And one more thing: Demand can NEVER exceed supply. Price makes sure of that. Econ 101.

 

[thesharpone]

Quote from Mvic:

Necessity is the mother of invention

that is just wrong and false

there is no force (within us) stronger than the will to live, and yet there is not one invention that could double our life span

stress can really kill people, specially their brains and ability to think properly, when in pain and suffering the mind can not invent

blow your account in one day and try to trade the same day to recover it, you will probably end up owing something

most inventions are just so fucking random, but if you are talking about advancement in a specific field that is another story

believe me if this world ever runs out of it's main sources of energy, people won't be at their desk thinking of new ways to get energy, they will be at your door, with their shot guns

 

[Pekelo]

Very good points from the 3 previous posters. Unfortunatelly, the result of education on peak oil is almost close to zero, when it goes to closed minded people.
Also, the idea that something what we got used to for decades is going to end is just too strange and scary to fathom and it is much easier to deny than to try to accept and look for solutions.

Sadly....

 

[Mvic]

Quote from thesharpone:

that is just wrong and false

there is no force (within us) stronger than the will to live, and yet there is not one invention that could double our life span

stress can really kill people, specially their brains and ability to think properly, when in pain and suffering the mind can not invent

blow your account in one day and try to trade the same day to recover it, you will probably end up owing something

most inventions are just so fucking random, but if you are talking about advancement in a specific field that is another story

believe me if this world ever runs out of it's main sources of energy, people won't be at their desk thinking of new ways to get energy, they will be at your door, with their shot guns

For some the glass if half full and getting fuller, for others the glass is half empty, has a crack in it, and the bottom is about to fall out

I notice that Goog just got in to the clean energy business, and the beat goes on.

Its not that I am a wide eyed optimist, its just that I remember writing code on a 32K (as in less than a Megabyte!) BBC computer back in the mid 80s. 20 years later and we are on the cusp of yet another revolution in computing that would shatter Moore's law
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/technology/11storage.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Advances in material science make things possible today that would have seemed laughable even 10 years ago. The rate of progress and productivity is speeding up not slowing down and what the world will look like 20-30 years from now is likely to make the energy concerns we have today seem rather myopic if we can keep up with the population explosion (a real concern and sadly I think the poster who predicted a pandemic that will substantially reduce the global population is likely correct)

If you insist on viewing the world as static then already there are technologies that are bringing us productive deep sea finds like the one recently off the coast of Brazil and the technologies they are using in Kansas to get what using old methods would have taken 100 years out of the ground in 10 years (involves pumping water down in to the oil field to facilitate faster extraction).

I just saw a story on CNN where Neil Young is getting his old 60's beater that gets 10MG converted to a 135MPG rocket!

Despite the fact that the human body is the most complicated machine on the face of the planet what we have acheived in terms of extending lifespan is remarkable given the relative dark ages we have and are still living in in terms of understanding the how it works. This table speaks for itself:
http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2838

I suppose advances in medicine, nutrition etc had nothing to do with that. In genetics were are also on the cusp of a revolution in epi genetics. The promise of being able to manipulate our genes is closer than ever and while still 10-20 years away it would not surprise me if by the end of this century we will have added another 30 years to the human lifespan.

Tin foil hat off

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from Mvic:

Tin foil hat off

Ponderables:

1. Bringing up computer technology as an analogy is just BAD argument.
2. Right now crude oil is irreplacable. Until you find something that can be used from energy to medicine to anything else, humankind is out of luck. No rates of productivity will help that.
3. The Tapi field although big by Brazilian standards, minoscule by worldusage. It would be sucked dry in 3 months, if the world was using it as an only source. Now you don't hear about such a findings in every 3 months, do you? But that's what we needed just to keep up with the current demand.
4. The current young generation is the first in centuries that is less likely to outlive their parents' lifespan. Spin that!! What is the point in stretching a few people's lifes a few years longer if the masses are dying SOONER?
5. Advantages in medicine etc. again false analogy. Doesn't necessery applies to energy.

You can leave your hat on.....

P.S.: You assume that the interest of people in power is the same as humankind's. Unfortunatelly it isn't the case, thus they can and will delay (they already have been) the necessery steps long enough that it can be too late. When was the last time a government acknowledged the FACT of peak oil???

 

[Mvic]

Thanks for your sartorial advice

My point about productivity was the rate at which technological breakthroughs are occurring and not just in the world of computers (here again the point was the speed at which computing power is evolving is facilitating technological breakthroughs in many other areas).

As far as those in power having the broader populations interest at heart I assume nothing of the sort, thankfully though, try as they might those in power are not able to keep progress down for long. Scientific advances seek freedom and if they are stifled in one country they go to another where they don't face such impediments.

I respectfully disagree with you about lifespan. The mean and median lifespan is substantially higher today than it was 100 years ago, and it will be higher still 100 years from now.

I wonder what makes you think that a) despite the accelerating pace of scientific advances in the last century we will suddenly experience a worldwide hiatus in technological advance? and b) why energy and oil substitutions are areas that are exempt from any similar innovation? Sure there are vested interests in oil as there are in most industries but it the world can overcome the Holy Roman Empire it can overcome a bunch of oil men, especially when it becomes too expensive not to do otherwise. Do you not think that @$200 oil would have an effect on the speed at which alternatives are sought, @300, the higher the oil price the faster the pace of innovations of alternatives, peak oil theory doesn't take that simple fact into account.

Its not that I don't buy the idea of peak oil, its just that I don't buy the assumptions that there will not be an alternative (s) and that the consequences of peak oil will be as devastating as the peak oil doom and gloomers expect.

I am starting to feel like the heretic in the fanatics den, usually a sign that the utility of further discussion is limited. I'll take the history of human innovation over the blinkered/static models of a bunch of geologists any day.