Peak Oil is absolute, indisputable, scientific fact. Hubbard’s calculations were in fact based on the assumption that some deposits were more expensive to exploit than others, and that as the price rises and technology improves, more deposits will be exploited. The question is not whether peak oil will happen; it’s what the consequences will be. If we do a good job transitioning to techs which need less or no oil, the consequences won’t be too bad at all. If we don’t make such a transition, they might be very bad.
I’ll point out that The Oil Drum website basically retired and became an archive. AFAIK they were the biggest Peak Oil proponents around. Did they give up in the face of the points XT is making, did they just get tired, or what?
The fact that oil production will peak is certainly a fact. It’s the Peak Oil™ end of the world gloom and doom that’s really under discussion in these sorts of threads, and it’s that aspect I was responding too.
I don’t know specifically why the Oil Drum folded (I didn’t even know they did until you brought it up), but it’s kind of hard to keep being chicken little when the sky never falls. Look at this thread…it’s from 2003. Here we are, over a decade later, and the sky still hasn’t fallen, nor is there any clear indication that it’s poised to do so any day now. Certainly the price per barrel has fluctuated during that time. Even adjusted for inflation the trend is pretty clear that it’s rising. But, as it rises, the thing the Peak Oil folks never seem to take into account is that reserves that were economically unfeasible in the past become viable. Technologies and techniques that were not economically feasible become viable. Alternatives that couldn’t compete with fossil fuel based technology become viable. Look at how far hybrids have come…and how far all electric has come…since 2003. And that’s with oil/gasoline STILL relatively cheap. As the price rises, more and more alternatives will become viable and economically feasible until, eventually, there will be a tipping point.
Or, I guess, no one will do anything and we’ll simply run out of oil and all go back to the joys of hunting and gathering.
The real problem with diminishing oil production isn’t energy. It’s certainly conceivable we’ll find alternative energy sources (although they may be more expensive than oil).
The real issue is fertilizer. We turn fossil fuel into fertilizer. And this has allowed us to maintain higher agricultural production than we could using natural means. It’s a chemical process so energy sources like nuclear or solar can’t substitute.
I’m no chemist, but my understanding is that methane and other things can be used to substitute for the fixing the nitrogen to make ammonia. From what I recall, while it’s not a non-issue, it’s hardly a world breaking show stopper.
Sorry, this will be a drive by link as I’m running to the air port for a business trip. But, according to Forbes here (just a quick Google search), the author doesn’t seem to think that it’s an issue (re: oil based fertilizers):
With respect to fertilizer the problem is phosphorus (it is needed for plant growth and plants remove it from the soil):
“Peak phosphorus is the point in time at which the maximum global phosphorus production rate is reached. Phosphorus is a scarce finite resource on earth and means of production other than mining are unavailable because of its non-gaseous environmental cycle. According to some researchers, Earth’s phosphorus reserves are expected to be completely depleted in 50–100 years and peak phosphorus to be reached in approximately 2030.”
Phosphorous itself we can’t run out of, as it’s an element. It might become locked into an inconvenient chemical form (I don’t know the details of that), but that takes it right back to being an energy problem: We can start with that inconvenient form and apply energy to turn it back into whatever the convenient form is.
Fossil Zombie! :eek:
Obviously, they’re more expensive (including the cost of adapting from oil to something else) than the current cost of oil, or else people would be using them instead. “Current” is the operative word; rising oil costs as the “Peak Oil” scenario gradually unfolds changes the equation.
He’s right in the sense that we use natural gas instead of oil to make fertilizer. But he’s being disingenuous when he then claims there’s therefore no problem. Natural gas is facing the same peak production issue that oil is. So’s coal, for that matter. All fossil fuels have it at some point - the only debate is over what year it’ll happen in.
The author also seems to misunderstand (or is trying to obscure) what the issue is. As I said, it’s a chemical process and he keeps talking about energy. You can get the needed chemicals out of natural gas or oil or coal. But I’d be interested in how he thinks you can get chemicals out of a windmill or a solar cell.
Holy shit. Ten years later, and the Chicken Littles are still saying the world is going to run out of oil within the next decade.
How the hell can anyone post that sort of comment in a ten year old thread that made exactly the same prediction when it was first opened? Why are some people so enchanted with the idea that the apocalypse is about to strike to the point of denying of denying that such predictions are completely wrong every single time they are made, and have been for 100 years?
:rolleyes:
Maybe I’m missing something here. What chemicals are you talking about? I assume you mean inorganic fertilizers. According to this, there are ‘six macronutrients: nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S);’ and ‘eight micronutrients: boron (B), chlorine (Cl), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), zinc (Zn) and nickel (Ni) (1987)’.
I understand that if the Peak Oil crowd have it right, civilization will certainly end. We’ll have more to worry about than not having fertilizer, that’s certain. But assuming for a moment that we peak in oil production and this doesn’t cause the end of the world, but merely means the costs for oil continue to increase, why do you posit that this will cause…well, whatever you are getting at wrt fertilizer and peak oil? I’m not being snide here, I really don’t get it. 
I don’t think most peak oil proponents predict civilization is going to end. Or that we’re going to run out of oil. These are just the most fringe predictions that are repeated to discredit the entire idea.
The core of peak oil theory (and peak gas and peak coal) is that fossil fuels are a finite resource. There is a certain amount of them in the world and we can’t manufacture more (at least not in any realistic amount). These are facts that even the most ardent deniers concede are true.
So the main dispute if over the issues of when we will reach peak production and what will be the results of post-peak production that will increase in cost and decrease in amount.
The Chicken Littles of 2004 weren’t predicting we were going to run out of oil in ten years. They were predicting the price of oil was going to increase over the next ten years. In 2003, the average price of a barrel of oil was $27.69. In 2013, the average price of a barrel of was $91.17. Right now today the price of a barrel of oil is $104.30.
Do the scientists still look silly?
Actually, I think the peak oil folks have always taken into account that as oil gets more expensive, new reserves would become economical. I think what they didn’t predict was the extraordinary scale of these new reserves. Look at the OP- (s)he rightly points out that no new super-giant oil fields had been found from the '80s until that point. And that was a reasonable cause for alarm- where the hell was the oil going to come from when all that was left was ever-shrinking discoveries of more-expensive oil?
But that trend didn’t hold. A few years after the OP, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing hit the scene. I think it was 2005 or 2007 that the Bakken started really being exploited. Whether or not it was economical or not before is moot- it just wasn’t possible before. Anyway, it turns out that this one deposit is truly a monster. I’ve seen estimates as high as 425 billion recoverable barrels (though I don’t 100% believe any of the estimates of the Bakken), and there are other big shale deposits scattered around the US and indeed around the world.
So, it is a pain that this oil is so expensive to produce, and that fracking sucks up so much precious water and runs the risk of turning any area it touches into a wasteland. But I don’t think the guys at, for example, the Oil Drum (or me- I worried about this issue enough to really look into it, then calmed down) were prepared for such massive reserves to reveal themselves.
I’m sorry, but I totally disagree (ETA: This was mean as a response to Little Nemo). The Peak Oil™ folks have ALWAYS been about predicting gloom and doom, the end of the world, cats and dogs living together, etc etc, and that’s permeated the debate on this board for over a decade now. Very few people dispute the scientific reality that, at some point, oil production (as well as every other commodity or product) will, eventually, peak and decline. Oil is no different…nor is coal, nor other fossil fuels. It’s going to happen, if for no other reason than eventually we’ll simply move on to something else and that will cause the decline. The crux of the debate as far as Peak Oil proponents goes is that this is going to happen suddenly, rapidly, and that it’s going to cause our civilization to collapse.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
So the main dispute if over the issues of when we will reach peak production and what will be the results of post-peak production that will increase in cost and decrease in amount.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not the main dispute in these thread or in this debate. That’s the rational debate we SHOULD be having, but it’s not the debate we HAVE been having.
I do think that most Peak Oil proponents predict dire consequences and gloom and doom. They aren’t the fringe, they are the core. Again, most people with a clue freely acknowledge that oil production will peak. It’s going to happen. So, not much of a debate there.
The chicken little’s were absolutely predicting we were going to run out of oil in 10 years (or that we’d deplete our reserves so much that civilization would collapse, basically most people would die off, and we’d go back to the joys of hunting and gathering or some such).
As to the rest of your point there, well, yeah…that’s what rational people were predicting back then. Everyone with a clue knew the price of oil was going to rise as the easier reserves were depleted and new, more difficult and expensive reserves were used. That’s how market economics works after all. And the price of oil will continue to rise…which will open up reserves that are currently not economically feasible to exploit become economically feasible. Again, that’s how it works. The issue was trying to beat that concept into most of the Peak Oil crowds heads. It was not very successful.
Is straw on sale? Neither scientists nor economists look silly…the folks who look silly are the Peak Oil crowd who have been saying the sky is falling for over a decade now, yet…well, the sky still hasn’t fallen, nor does it look poised to do so any time soon. In the mean time, reserves that used to be unexploited due to economic or technological factors are now exploitable (which is what people tried to tell the Peak Oil crowd way back then) and new technologies for alternatives continue to be developed and even brought to market (which, again, people tried to tell the Peak Oil folks back then)…and, as the price of oil continues to rise, as it inevitably will, even MORE reserves will be exploited as their price point or as technologies become available, and even MORE alternatives will be developed or brought to the market as they become viable and competitive. Eventually, there will be a tipping point, and oil production will decline even more rapidly until it drops to somewhere around whale oil production and we will have moved on. Without the world ending.
I am interested in the chemistry and fertilizer angle you brought up though, if you would like to expand on that.
Sure. The problem with Peak Oil folk, IMHO, is that they never seem to grasp market economics at a fundamental level. I’m not talking about people who know that oil production will peak, mind, but folks who predict that it will rapidly peak and cause a crash because we’ll run out of oil suddenly and catastrophically and the world will come to an end. The reality was always that the price of oil might spike or dip, but that it’s on a long, steady climb as the easy reserves were used up. Even in 2003 people tried to point out that there was shale oil, and tar sands and other reserves that were massive but relatively unexploited because they simply weren’t economically viable at the price point that oil was at then…and the technology wasn’t being pushed for development because, again, it wasn’t needed (though it WAS being developed). That’s always been the frustrating thing in these debates…trying to get that point across, and being told that it was magical thinking, despite the fact that it’s how market economics works AND the fact that historically it’s what actually has happened when we’ve come up to these tipping points in the past.
But I agree with your assessment of the probable reason why the Oil Drum has seemingly gone into hibernation.
There is no more cheap oil. It’s now around $100 a barrel, three times higher than what it should be. Conventional production has been in plateau and production for the five major players have been dropping by 25 pct since 2005.
Also, when the oil price goes up and other sources of energy are needed, these don’t debunk peak oil but proves it.
Peak oil isn’t about running out of oil but running out of “easy oil.” “Easy oil” is oil at less than $30 a barrel. What we have is oil that is now becoming more expensive to extract and process. The same applies especially for unconventional production:
“We’re fracking to stand still”
Thus, two-thirds of oil produced are needed to replace old wells.
That’s why we need to look at production rate and not reserves:
“The only true metric of energy abundance: The rate of flow”
In light of rate of flow, one should consider energy return:
“Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)”
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786
The energy returns for unconventional production and alternatives are low, but a global economy with a growing middle class needs high energy returns. In terms of economic growth, to maintain that, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html
and to maintain a growing global middle class, even more:
“Former BP geologist: peak oil is here and it will ‘break economies’”
Finally, the transition period is lengthy because significant sectors of manufacturing and even food production are heavily dependent on oil, especially petrochemicals used for thousands of consumer products. In fact, oil is needed even for renewable energy, including copper and other minerals that need to be mined, plastics for various components, and even fuel needed to deliver goods across thousands of km through JIT systems to keep costs low.
One should consider the IEA:
“IEA Confirms The End Of Cheap Oil”