Peak Oil Crisis...

[evilgoldtoesock]

To say that there is a lot of doom-saying on the internet would be a dramatic understatement. The most convincing "doomsay" I have found is related to the current energy crisis. Many people, including a number of respected geologists, believe that 5 billion people will die after oil production peaks. This, of course, would not happen all at once, but would begin when oil-based fuels become to expensive to extract easily.

Type in "Peak Oil" in a search engine to see websites related to what I'm talking about.

Peak oil advocates believe that alternative energy sources cannot be implemented in time to compensate for the drastic loss in oil energy. They present a huge amount of evidence to back up their assertions, noting how modern society is entirely dependent on oil energy.

What is everyone's take on all of this?

 

[uruk]

I think this was already debated about here. (maybe some one here can give you the link) The peak oil crisis is a "worst case" sceneario. Oil will eventualy run out but theres debate over how long and what actual prices will be. Also there are plenty of alternatives out there but doomsayers usualy play those down so that what they say sounds worse.

Check this this out about the polar ice shelves.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2004/107.cfm

 

[evilgoldtoesock]

Thanks, I've done a search and found the debate. Sorry for the redundancy...

 

[fishbob]

Many people, including a number of respected geologists, believe that 5 billion people will die after oil production peaks. This, of course, would not happen all at once, but would begin when oil-based fuels become to expensive to extract easily.

[smart@ss comment] There are 6 billion people running around the planet right now. In the next 70 years or so, at least 5 billion will die, whether we reach peak oil production or not. [/smart@ss comment]

 

[epepke]

[smart@ss comment] There are 6 billion people running around the planet right now. In the next 70 years or so, at least 5 billion will die, whether we reach peak oil production or not. [/smart@ss comment]

It's actually quite a reasonable smart-whatever comment.

Tom Lehrer wrote a song called We Will All Go Together When We Go about nuclear annihilation. I'm not sure if it was on his 1952 or 1954 album. But it contains the line "nearly three billion chunks of well-done steak." Now it's over six billion. A good point could be made that the difference consists largely of people who would otherwise have died. It's not like it's due to a loss of the great secrets of 1950s birth control.

 

[Outcast]

To say that there is a lot of doom-saying on the internet would be a dramatic understatement. The most convincing "doomsay" I have found is related to the current energy crisis. Many people, including a number of respected geologists, believe that 5 billion people will die after oil production peaks. This, of course, would not happen all at once, but would begin when oil-based fuels become to expensive to extract easily.

Type in "Peak Oil" in a search engine to see websites related to what I'm talking about.

Peak oil advocates believe that alternative energy sources cannot be implemented in time to compensate for the drastic loss in oil energy. They present a huge amount of evidence to back up their assertions, noting how modern society is entirely dependent on oil energy.

What is everyone's take on all of this?

I agree. I'll go along with the 50 years left time frame. What I've read of alternative energy, I agree there is no technology for the replacement of oil at this time. If we were serious about this, we would start on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources, starting with electricity which would be the easiest, since we already have the technology. Nuclear power would help, but, if we were allowed to build more. Also we have the technology to put solar panels in space and beam power back to earth. The longer we wait, the worse it gets, since it takes oil to manufacture an alternative to oil.

Shell Oil chief resigns

Shell, the world's third-largest public oil company in terms of market capitalization, said in January that it was downgrading 3.9 billion barrels in reserves, or about 20 percent of its total holdings. A March announcement brought the total downgraded to 4.15 billion barrels.

I wonder who else is lying about their oil reserves?

Good place to start your reading. Life After the Oil Crash

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What is everyone's take on all of this?

My take?

It is real, and a major factor driving US foreign policy.

It is going to happen, and all of the people who think that "the free market" is going to save them simply have not faced the facts. Also, it will be the US which is hit hardest because it is the most oil-dependent and the least willing to change its attitude.

 

[aerocontrols]

If we were serious about this, we would start on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources, starting with electricity which would be the easiest, since we already have the technology. Nuclear power would help, but, if we were allowed to build more. Also we have the technology to put solar panels in space and beam power back to earth. The longer we wait, the worse it gets, since it takes oil to manufacture an alternative to oil.

I just want to point out that electricity is not an alternative energy source.

Preemptive related point: Neither is hydrogen.

Running out of hydrocarbons is a problem that can be solved by nuclear power, in my view.

MattJ

 

[Outcast]

I just want to point out that electricity is not an alternative energy source.

Preemptive related point: Neither is hydrogen.

Running out of hydrocarbons is a problem that can be solved by nuclear power, in my view.

MattJ

True on both accounts. I should have said alternative ways of producing electricity.

 

[uruk]

I agree there is no technology for the replacement of oil at this time.

This is not entirely true.

there is alot of research into alternative and synthetic replacements for hydrocarbons in agriculture, medicine, and others. just google it. for instance, geneticaly engineered plants that produce plastics. check it out, it's real. hydrocarbon is just a complex molecule that can be fabricated, although not in large quantities at the moment. But necessity is often the mother of invention.

And as for oil, I live in south Texas, they are always drilling down here constantly. I can see at least two riggs outside my window right now. I used to work for an oil field service company the drilling continues. And thats just in Texas, that not counting the rest of the nation, Canada, Mexico, South America, off shore drilling. I wondering what is being done with all the oil being drilled on this hemisphere? I've heard things about the oil being thicker and the sulpher content being higher than in the Middle east. That may account for one or two geographic areas, but surley not all. And if all this "bad" oil is to expensive to process, then why all the continuous drilling? why drill for oil that's too expensive to process and sell? I think it's obviously for political reasons. Oil is too important to our economy and forien policy for the government to completly on the up and up to the public.

anyhoo I sound like a conspiracist. but can anyone give me an answer as to why we continue to drill for oil that's bad and too expensive to processes? If you don't believe me, I can post pictures of all the drilling riggs that are operating right here in South Texas. And there's alot!

I've heard things about "the national reserve" o.k fine but why do we still allow our nads to be squeezed by foriegn countries over oil?

 

[reprise]

These graphs from the BBC make it easier to understand why the US is so vulnerable to anything at all which affects oil pricing.

As you can see, the proved reserves of the US total only 4.8% of the world's proved reserves, so even though the US does produce a lot of its own oil, ramping up domestic production is still going to fall far short of providing its current needs and is likely to be just as expensive as paying a greater price for imported oil.

 

[uruk]

That still does not answer why we're still drilling for oil that's too expensive to process and sell. It makes no economic sense to expend money on drilling for a product that too expensive sell on the market. It just may be the conspiracists in me, but I say there's something that does not add up.

 

[aerocontrols]

That still does not answer why we're still drilling for oil that's too expensive to process and sell. It makes no economic sense to expend money on drilling for a product that too expensive sell on the market. It just may be the conspiracists in me, but I say there's something that does not add up.

It won't always be too expensive to process. As the price of oil goes up or technology overcomes the obstacles to drilling, pumping, and processing the 'harder to get' oil, those sites will become valuable.

In the meantime, companies search for the oil in order to stake their claims to it. And landowners search for it so that they don't sell their oil-rich desert land for less than they should out of ignorance.

It seems to add up just fine to me.

MattJ

 

[Bjorn]

That still does not answer why we're still drilling for oil that's too expensive to process and sell. It makes no economic sense to expend money on drilling for a product that too expensive sell on the market. It just may be the conspiracists in me, but I say there's something that does not add up.

1. If oil prices go up, caused by less reserves or other reasons, couldn't it suddenly become affordable to 'process and sell'?

2. Technology advances have already made drilling possible in areas where nobody would have thought so 40 years ago.

Couldn't it happen again?

 

[uruk]

well see that's the point. But the doomsayer's downplay the role this will have.

I also don't buy the "bad" oil routine. Some areas I can buy, but not all areas. you can't say all the oil on this side of the hemisphere is bad, or hard to get. I still say there is a largely political reason for all the oil we purchase from the middle east.

 

[epepke]

That still does not answer why we're still drilling for oil that's too expensive to process and sell. It makes no economic sense to expend money on drilling for a product that too expensive sell on the market. It just may be the conspiracists in me, but I say there's something that does not add up.

The only reason that we are doing that is because, even if it is more expensive than it was before, it's still less expensive than most of the alternatives. At some point, this may change. I don't see how oil reserves are going to get tapped out in a week or so. It will probably happen gradually over a decade or two. When it happens, we can only hope that it will be enough time for a gradual economic transition.

 

[Outcast]

This is not entirely true.

there is alot of research into alternative and synthetic replacements for hydrocarbons in agriculture, medicine, and others. just google it. for instance, geneticaly engineered plants that produce plastics. check it out, it's real. hydrocarbon is just a complex molecule that can be fabricated, although not in large quantities at the moment. But necessity is often the mother of invention.

Notice how much oil our farming system uses? It is going to be hard to grow geneticaly engineered plants without oil.

Eating Fossil Fuels

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production

· 08% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: Peak Oil Crisis...

My take? It is real, and a major factor driving US foreign policy.
It is going to happen, and all of the people who think that "the free market"
is going to save them simply have not faced the facts. Also, it will be the US
which is hit hardest because it is the most oil-dependent and the least willing
to change its attitude.

I so wish to make a bet on this. If gasoline in the united states rises
above one dollar per liter by the end of the year 2012 then I pay you
one thousand united states cents; if not, then you pay me one thousand
eruos. Course, I don't know the value of a euro. Alas, it is not legal to do
this here, so sigh.

 

[aerocontrols]

Re: Re: Re: Peak Oil Crisis...

I so wish to make a bet on this. If gasoline in the united states rises
above one dollar per liter by the end of the year 2012 then I pay you
one thousand united states cents; if not, then you pay me one thousand
eruos. Course, I don't know the value of a euro. Alas, it is not legal to do
this here, so sigh.

It's legal if the bet goes to charity.

 

[uruk]

Notice how much oil our farming system uses? It is going to be hard to grow geneticaly engineered plants without oil.

Like I said, all of which can be replaced by synthetics or alternatives when it becomes economicaly viable.