Peak oil. Ask me anything.

[peak_oil]

If I don’t know the answer, I’ll try to find out. I’m only sticking around for half an hour, but I’ll check in again tomorrow if I don’t get to everybody.

Fire at will.

[treis]

Why didn’t you read the forum descriptions before you posted?

[Apos]

What?

No, really.

Natural resources are priced by their scarcity. If oil becomes scarce, then the price will rise, rise to incredible heights. Other energy sources will thus become cheaper. Innovation and adaption to other sources of power will result. All will be well. So what’s your point?

[peak_oil]

@treis

Why didn’t you read the forum descriptions before you posted?

Hmmm.

[peak_oil]

@Apos

What?

No, really.

Natural resources are priced by their scarcity. If oil becomes scarce, then the price will rise, rise to incredible heights. Other energy sources will thus become cheaper. Innovation and adaption to other sources of power will result. All will be well. So what’s your point?

Most of the above is correct.

Resources are priced by their scarcity, sort of correct. Also priced by usefulness. Californium is rare, but not valuable for much of anything.

If oil becomes scarece, then the price will rise, rise to incredible heights. Yes indeed. This will have an adverse effect on the economy, no?

Other energy sources will thus become cheaper (by comparison). Only by comparison, not in an absolute sense. This is the thing that people miss in this topic. Cheaper by comparison.

Innovation and adaptation to other sources of power will result. Yes indeed. We will innovate more efficient methods of transporting and storing power. We will not, however, innovate sources of power. You can’t innovate sources of power. We will definitely adapt to a new, low-energy environment.

All will be well. Well, if you consider riding a bicycle to work “all is well” then I guess we’re all set to go.

I guess I don’t necessarily disagree with much of that post. I think it’s more that the implications of a few of your statements aren’t given the depth and weight that they deserve.

For example, we’ll adapt to other sources of power. We’ll burn wood for a while, until we deforest our local areas. Examples: Philipines, Easter Island, Europe a little while ago. Then, we’ll move on to other sources such as methane from cow feces (not kidding), then coal… this one particular part of your post is worth much research, I think.

http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=philippines+deforestation&spell=1

[Rune]

@peak_oil

All will be well. Well, if you consider riding a bicycle to work “all is well” then I guess we’re all set to go.

I’m doing that now. Did we hit peak-oil already?

Anyway, what if anything have you done to prepare yourself for the coming collapse?

[peak_oil]

@Rune

I’m doing that now. Did we hit peak-oil already?

Anyway, what if anything have you done to prepare yourself for the coming collapse?

I quit my job as a stockbroker to go back to school. I’m going to be a nurse.

[peak_oil]

Well, it’s been real! Don’t forget to tip your waitress. I’ll be here for 28 days.

[Apos]

@peak_oil

If oil becomes scarece, then the price will rise, rise to incredible heights. Yes indeed. This will have an adverse effect on the economy, no?

No.

If it becomes clear that oil is becoming particularly scarce, then prices will rise gradually over time, and the economics will have plenty of time to recalibrate.

Innovation and adaptation to other sources of power will result. Yes indeed. We will innovate more efficient methods of transporting and storing power. We will not, however, innovate sources of power. You can’t innovate sources of power.

Why not? Nuclear power will, comparitively, become very cost effective. We might even invest as much in it as we have into oil power. So what? Human civilization got on okay without oil. The concept of energy crisis is a transistory one: humanity has generally found alternatives.

All will be well. Well, if you consider riding a bicycle to work “all is well” then I guess we’re all set to go.

Again, why? The energy markets represent the BEST guesses we have as to where the energy markets will go in the future. Maybe you think the markets are way off: in that case, invest heavily in those markets you think they are undervaluing! You could be rich! If not, then maybe the markets have a decent idea of where the market is going after all.

[QuarkChild]

Human civilization got on okay without oil. The concept of energy crisis is a transistory one: humanity has generally found alternatives.

I don’t necessarily buy into either side of the “peak oil” debate, but if I may comment on this–I know that they are alternatives to oil for energy purposes, but what about fertilizer? Human civilization got on okay with manure for a long time, but now there’s 6 billion mouths to feed. Are there alternatives to petroleum-based fertilizers that could be used on that kind of scale?

[peak_oil]

@Apos

No.
Apos, be careful with me when you say something absolute like “no.” I could care less what your post count is. Be accurate.

If it becomes clear that oil is becoming particularly scarce, then prices will rise gradually over time, and the economics will have plenty of time to recalibrate.

You are lying through your teeth. Look at a chart of oil prices and tell me they rise gradually, over time. They spike really hard over short periods of time.

Why not? Nuclear power will, comparitively, become very cost effective. We might even invest as much in it as we have into oil power. So what? Human civilization got on okay without oil. The concept of energy crisis is a transistory one: humanity has generally found alternatives.

On this, I agree with you. Nuclear power will become very cost effective (comparatively). We should be building nuclear reactors as fast as we can, but for different reasons. Natural Gas production is dropping off a cliff in the US and we desperately need something to fill the gap. Nuclear can fill the gap, and we need it. Now.

Human civilization got on OK without oil when we had 25% of the population that we support today. Humanity found alternatives that worked, yes. Very true. We live in different circumstances today than we did back then.

Again, why? The energy markets represent the BEST guesses we have as to where the energy markets will go in the future. Maybe you think the markets are way off: in that case, invest heavily in those markets you think they are undervaluing! You could be rich! If not, then maybe the markets have a decent idea of where the market is going after all.

The energy markets represent the best guesses we have as to where the energy markets will go in the future. I agree with you somewhat. The energy markets (if you mean the nymex markets) look out… so far… into the future. In the short term, they’re probably fine. As far as investing in the markets that are undervalued… I have. And I do. I’ve done very well so far. I don’t expect to be rich, though. I expect to be very poor as far as current standards of living go.

My fondest hope is to see my family make it through the transitional period in one piece.

[Apos]

@peak_oil

The energy markets represent the best guesses we have as to where the energy markets will go in the future.

Yep. You might give unnatural weight to your fears of oil running out and the market collapsing. But the people who invest in oil have no such biases: they are in this only to make money. So why would they stick round in a loser market? If it were obvious that oil would soon be on the outs, why wouldn’t they choose to make a killing by investing in some alternative energy source that humanity would soon have to turn to? That they haven’t is, in itself, a pretty good sign that the impending doom isn’t so impending as you’d have us believe. Again, they don’t care about this theory or that: all they want is to make money with the best, most likely bets out there.

[peak_oil]

@Apos

Yep. You might give unnatural weight to your fears of oil running out and the market collapsing. But the people who invest in oil have no such biases: they are in this only to make money. So why would they stick round in a loser market? If it were obvious that oil would soon be on the outs, why wouldn’t they choose to make a killing by investing in some alternative energy source that humanity would soon have to turn to? That they haven’t is, in itself, a pretty good sign that the impending doom isn’t so impending as you’d have us believe. Again, they don’t care about this theory or that: all they want is to make money with the best, most likely bets out there.

You are correct. I agree with you as far as you go. Why would investors stick around in a losing market? It seems that the most efficient answer would be that they would make their money back, if not more.

Unfortunately, it seems that the market is less forgiving than you are. All you have to do is find a market or two in which the investor lost their shirts. Try 1929, 1973, 1979, 2000, and a few others. If you assume that capital will flow in the most appropriate direction, you will eventually be burned.

Oil investors are running from oil and natural gas right now. They’re running to coal. Coal will hold out for a while, until it starts to peak. Maybe you should do a little research into how many oil-fired electricity generation plants are planned for the near future. While you’re at it, you might check on how many natural-gas-fired electricity plants are planned for the near future. Check that against coal-fired electricity plants.

You might be surprised.

On that note, I’m hitting the sack. See you tomorrow.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@peak_oil

All will be well. Well, if you consider riding a bicycle to work “all is well” then I guess we’re all set to go.

I already do that. Don’t even own a car. Even so, I consider 99% of the ‘peak oil’ claims to be unadulterated panic-mongering bullshit.

I have yet to see anyone signifigant attached to the oil industry who is really biting their nails. Those that were attached the inudstry and are crying ‘peak oil’ are economists and such and not geologists.

People have been predicting variations on “peak oil” since cars first ran on gasoline.

Dirt cheap oil (for Americans) may end, but that does mean we are collapsing in to a Mad Max II situation. There is plenty of shale oil to convert, for example, and when it becomes economical to do so it will be used.

Also, substitutes are moving into vogue:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-04zzzi.html

Thermal depolymerization

Plus many others.

I think a former minister of OPEC said it best when he stated that the stone age didn’t end because of a lack of stones, it will be the same for the oil age.

Oh! and BTW, We’ve done this before (one thread of many).

[robz]

Explain, discuss, the great die off? I understand that oil is used to make fertilizer, and used for food transportaion, therefore more expensive oil = more expensive food. So gradually increasing oil prices will mean millions starving? I understand the logic, I just do not make the leap to millions dying.

Robz

[bump]

Any scare about peak oil, fertilizer production and famines is tinfoil-hattery of the first order.

From theInternational Fertilizer Industry Association site:

About 97% of nitrogen fertilizers are derived from synthetically produced ammonia, the remainder being by-product ammonium sulphate from the caprolactam process and small quantities of natural nitrates, especially from Chile. The production of anhydrous ammonia is based on reacting nitrogen with hydrogen under high temperatures and pressures. The source of nitrogen is the air, the hydrogen being derived from a variety of raw materials, including water, crude oil, coal and natural gas hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons provide the energy for the energy-intensive process. The high-temperature catalytic synthesis of ammonia from air is by far the main consumer of energy in the fertilizer industry. Nitrogen and hydrogen are universally available and the issue is the availability of energy.

According to them, all they use natural gas and other hydrocarbons for is energy for the production process, because hydrogen and nitrogen are readily available in the environment (air & water), and ammonia is nothing but hydrogen and nitrogen. There’s no reason that any other sort of energy could not be used to make fertilizer.

As for Phosphorus, potassium and sulfur, they’re mined from natural ores and deposits- no chemical processes there.

[pokey]

If the cost of transporting food were to go up significantly, wouldn’t that cause the price of food and other basic necessities to rise?

[El_Kabong]

Peak oil. Ask me anything.

Please tell us what your expertise is that enables you to speak with authority on this subject.

[XT]

Of course, all this has as its core assumption that oil reserves are rapidly running out. While this may (or may not) be true, we’ve seen no proof, one way or the other…at least not in THIS thread. I’d ask the OP to lay out his case for WHY we are rapidly closing in on the Peak Oil wall at this time, and why this would necessarily spell disaster (if thats the case s/he is making) and not simply a short term economic hit while the market adapts to alternative fuels/energy supplies that would become cost effective with rising oil prices.

As has been said, this has been done before (many times) on this board…but never by a person NAMED peak oil. That makes ALL the difference…

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@Mr. Miskatonic

I have yet to see anyone signifigant attached to the oil industry who is really biting their nails. Those that were attached the inudstry and are crying ‘peak oil’ are economists and such and not geologists.

Not true. Dr. Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, who predicts we will reach the all-time global peak in oil production in 2010, is a former exploration geologist for the petroleum industry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Campbell_(geologist), http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/. ASPO itself is a network of scientists. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_the_Study_of_Peak_Oil_and_Gas and http://www.peakoil.net/.

From James Howard Kunstler’s online column, “Clusterfuck Nation,” http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary7.html:

June 3, 2003
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil threw a major conference last week in Paris. The org is lead by Colin Campbell, retired chief geologist for Shell Oil, and the board members include an impressive roster of geologists who have worked both for Big Oil and acadamia, for instance, Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton, retired exploration manager of France’s giant Total company Jean Laherrere, Pierre-Rene Bauquis, VP of the French Energy Institute (IFP), and others like Matthew Simmons, the Houston-based investment banker specializing in energy companies.
The message emerging from the meeting is that the world may have already entered the unchartered territory of global oil depletion – that is, the downside of “Hubbert’s Curve,” the bell graph first used by Shell Oil geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956 to describe the destiny of the world’s oil supplies. Here are some of the salient points presented (thanks to Michael C. Ruppert reporting for the Fromthewilderness.com).

– Deffeyes repeated a claim he made in April that, based on production figures for the past three years, the world seems to have passed peak oil production in 2000.

– The once-hoped-for Caspian Sea bonanza has proved to be a major bust. British Petroleum and Exxon/Mobil have already pulled out.

– Reserve figures have been uniformly overstated for decades by both major oil companies and national governments – for tax advantages in the case of US companies and to evade export quota regulations in the case of OPEC members. Saudi Arabia’s reserves may be substantially lower than the 250 billion barrels claimed, and in fact Saudi Arabia may be producing now at 100 percent capacity, meaning they may now be passing peak.

– Oliver Appert, Chairman of the IFP, declared there are no more major significant reserves to be discovered and that the world oil depletion rate is between five and ten per cent per year, requiring 60 million barrels a day in new production to meet demand.

– Auto sales in China jumped 50 percent in 2002 alone.

– Matthew Simmons told the group that the US natural gas supply is near a crisis point. By 2001, with record drilling, there was no increase in supply, and by 2003 production was in serious decline. New Texas gas wells, he said, are in decline an average of 83 percent one year after drilling. “The world has no Plan B,” he said.

–Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik told the group that deep water drilling would not add significantly to the world’s oil reserve, that it did not make sense economically, and ultimately could only produce five billion barrels – equal to a 60-day world demand at current levels. Van Mourik also made the interesting observation that, “it may not be profitable to slow decline.”

– All speakers addressing the issue stated that no combination of alternative energy sources can replace hydrocarbons, and none even dreamed of will be implemented in time to avert major disruptions in industrial civilization.

– Dr. Jorg Wind, representing auto giant Daimler / Chrysler told the conference that his company did not view hydrogen as a viable alternative to petroleum-based engines. He stated that fuel cell vehicles would never amount to significant market share. Hydrogen was ruled out as a solution because of intensive costs of production, inherent energy inefficiencies, lack of infrastructure, and practical difficulties such as the extreme cost and difficulty of storage. The Daimler / Chrysler representative dismissed ethanol out of hand as “not energy efficient.”

– Pierre-Rene Bauquis remarked that commercial production of hydrogen is two to five times the cost of fossil fuels used to produce it.

– Other French presenters stated that ethanol used in France enjoyed a 300 percent government subsidy.

– Physics Professor Kjell Aleklett told the conference that exploiting the Canadian Tar Sands would be a financial and economic disaster, insofar as the amount of natural gas needed to create steam to process the mined sands, as well as the massive amounts of water used and polluted in the process.

– Chris Skrebowski of the UK’s Institute of Petroleum noted that by 2007 Britain will be in its second year of natural gas imports and its first year of oil imports, having severely depleted its North Sea reserves by that time.

Go ahead and draw some conclusions.

@Mr. Miskatonic

People have been predicting variations on “peak oil” since cars first ran on gasoline.

And they have been right, in terms of the capacities of oil producing regions. It doesn’t get noticed because the oil market is global. But oil production in the continental United States peaked in the early 1970s, exactly following the predictions that geophysicist M. King Hubbert had worked out in 1956. What that means for the future remains controversial. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil:

Given past oil production data, the model predicts the date of maximum oil production output for an oilfield, multiple oil fields, or an entire region. This maximum output point is referred to as the peak. The period after the peak is referred to as depletion. The graph of the rate of oil production for an individual oil field over time follows a bell-shaped curve: first, a slow steady increase of production; then, a sharp increase; then, a plateau (the “peak”); then, a slow decline; and, finally, a steep decline. In 1956, Hubbert accurately predicted the peak of oil production would take place in the early 1970s for the continental United States. In 1971, he predicted, using high and low estimates of global oil reserve data available to him at the time, that global oil production would peak between 1995 and 2000. This peak has not occurred, and the implications for the model are controversial. Some petroleum economists, such as Michael Lynch, argue (http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm) that the Hubbert model is unapplicable globally. Others, such as Colin Campbell, argue that the Hubbert model is fundamentally correct, and that the world faces the start of oil depletion between 2004 and 2015 – potentially leading to a major global crisis in the early 21st century.

One piece of data in this argument is the World Petroleum Assessment issued by the United States Geological Survey (http://energy.cr.usgs.gov). It estimates, based on current recovery rates, that there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for at least 50 to 100 years. Reactions to this estimate vary, with Campbell arguing that the USGS estimates are methodologically flawed and that there will be a peak in global oil production anywhere between 2004 and 2015. (Natural gas is expected to peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020.) By contrast, Lynch argues that the USGS estimates are too pessimistic, citing the fact that previous estimates by the USGS have consistently underestimated oil reserves available. As would be expected by any theory that predicts future fuel shortages, the Hubbert model has significant political and economic foreign policy ramifications.