• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peak Oil?

Refute that the world is running out of oil? Not likely. The spesifics can be debated, of course.
 
SkepticJ said:
Any data so I can refute this?--> http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341
Click to expand...

Yea, what Ririan said.

This was cute:

If you Google “peak oil,” 670,000 pages are returned – and those are only the English pages! Clearly, discussion and analysis of this problem is rife; yet in the real, offline world, one rarely hears or reads any of this. It is as if everyone is in denial.
Click to expand...

Science by google-hit.

Little green men gets 11,000,000 hits so that must be really true.
 
Ririon said:
Refute that the world is running out of oil? Not likely. The spesifics can be debated, of course.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that, I'm talking about the 30 year time frame. How many years do we have left? If we run out before fusion we're in a fix aren't we? Fission will still exist so technological civilisation isn't going away as the doomsday prediction on that forum suggests. Even if technology is in small pockets of powered cities it's still there. None of that falling and technology never coming back. That would be scarey, think about it! That would mean we're screwed. Asteroids will wipe out life again, and eventually the sun will destroy Earth. Human's have no more chance than the dinos did without advanced technology.
 
There is enuogh oil in Anwar to solve all our problems, or maybe I watch FOX news too much.
 
SkepticJ said:
How many years do we have left? If we run out before fusion we're in a fix aren't we?
Click to expand...
One thing for sure - we'll never run out. As the oil gets harder to extract, it will get more expensive, and if another source isn't found yet, we'll have to reduce our consumption.

I admit this is a very painful scenario, but it's not running out of oil.
 
SkepticJ said:
I'm not saying that, I'm talking about the 30 year time frame. How many years do we have left?
Click to expand...

Unknown, but it's a LOT more than 30 years.

One thing to keep in mind is that much of the discussion about oil production, etc. is based on oil reserves. Now this might sound rather obvious, but actually it isn't, because the term oil reserve does NOT mean the total amount of oil in the ground. It means the amount of oil that we could extract given current oil extraction technology AND current oil prices. In the 70's, oil reserves were sufficient to sustain demand for about 20 years. Obviously, we didn't run out of oil. Similarly, while oil reserves right now may stand at 30 years, we are NOT going to run out of oil in 30 years. There are huge deposits of oil in the world (such as the sand oil in Canada) that will last MUCH longer, but cannot be used right now because it would simply be too expensive. But that will change one way or another: either technology will make it cheaper to extract, or rising prices will mean it will become worthwhile.

Of course, at some point we'll run out of oil. And at some point before then, we'll hit peak oil production. But we're sure as hell not going to run out any time soon, and I don't think anyone has a good idea about when peak oil will actually hit or how steep any decline will be. In fact, it could just plateau for a very long time before any decline.

In relation to that particular thread, though, I found it very interesting that there was almost a HOPE that we'd run out of oil. All that talk about primitivists, and statements like "If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom." Talking about impending oil crisis and a return to primitive communal conditions is a sort of earth-first version of the rapture: those who clue in to the coming appocalypse will be able to live happily in its wake, while the rest of us oblivious schmucks will get our well-deserved comeuppance.
 
Before looking at this thread, I'd just posted to another thread on this forum, wherin I tried to crowd as many debating fallacies as I could into as few words as possible. That was meant as a parody. The first post in the thread you cited, I think, outdid me. S/he uses so many prejudicial, negative clauses that I had difficulty not laughing aloud at the ridiculous style. The author definitely has an axe to grind, correct or not.

Dave
 
CurtC said:
One thing for sure - we'll never run out. As the oil gets harder to extract, it will get more expensive, and if another source isn't found yet, we'll have to reduce our consumption.

I admit this is a very painful scenario, but it's not running out of oil.
Click to expand...

OK, let me modify my statement to closely mimic that of CurtC. Anyway, other sources are already here, but they are more expensive, especially where oil is so brilliant, like in transportation. And, if we factor in the cost of global warming, oil is pretty steep, to.

Anyway, oil prices will continue to climb in the long run. This will slow down overall global economic growth, since that is sensitive to energy costs. (Insert doom prediction.) It will also make all other energy sources more competitive, which is why all major auto makers have all kinds of cool prototype projects going.

For the long term future of the planet, I wish we had "run out of oil" a few decades ago. But when I fill my tank, I still want cheap gas now.

As for 30 years? Seems like a good ballpark figure for a future where things have radically changed in the oil market. But there will still be oil around. $200/barrel, anyone? If I thought I was the first person to think about it, I would buy some arctic drilling rights...
 
There is no correct answer for two reasons.
Technology and Politics.

Yes, oil fields are becoming uneconomical. This is not quite the same as running out. The point is that recovering the remaining oil is not cost effective.

Recovery technology improves yearly.

But demand keeps rising. (China / India / Asia)

Global eco-politics has prevented drilling in some areas where there may still be oil and gas. Offshore California for one. (They want it, but not in their back yard.)

Antarctica...

Big new fields are still found. Kazakstan's Kashagan field won't start production for three or four years yet. (But most of it will go east, not west).

Improved efficiency drops consumption from time to time, as do high prices. The artificially low price of fuel in the U.S. has been a major anomaly for twenty years. It must end eventually. Sell your SUV now.

You can't run a car on fusion. Or geothermal. Or solar.
Most electricity in Europe is generated by natural gas and that is running out too. There will be social changes. Reduced mobility being one. Commuting. Build railways. And canals.

Prediction. By 2020 a barrel of oil will cost around $600.
(It won't be Brent crude. There won't BE any Brent crude.)
Burning oil will be a political luxury and a military necessity.
People will use electric vehicles, public transport or bicycles. They will be slimmer and fitter.

The North Sea rigs will have wind and wave generators on them.

There's still plenty coal. Not in Britain of course. And oil shale- which you can get oil out of if you have a heat source. (Did someone say "fission"?)

One thing to think about- most of the shallow coal and oil is gone. It's hard to see how we could have the industrial revolution again. It takes low tech to bootstrap high tech.

We're doomed! Doomed, I tell ye...!
 
I decided to try to read more of that thread, Most of those folks struck me as reactionary greenie-weenie Luddites, only too happy that (In their view) civilization as we know it is circling-the-drain. The gleeful we-told-you-so tone and frequent mention of the supposed virtues of the simple life and the benefits of closer tribal-like interpersonal relationships capped it for me.

I'd be all too happy if these folks and their kind moved away and started their own Back To Nature commune and left the rest of us alone. They are evidently the types referred to by Douglas Adams line "Some even thought coming down from the trees was a bad idea"(paraphrased).

One of their own members, JMRobinson replied:
....
I would like to point out that the fact that governments and big business are apparently not doing all they can do avert this coming catastrophe is not indicative by itself that a future tragedy is even in the cards.

I suppose I have a bit more faith in free market economics than most though. I don't think capitalism and human advancement are to blame for some "vast majority...supporting a gluttonous minority" and the fact that "more people than ever live in abject poverty." Quite the opposite in fact. Social mobility and the middle class are greater in the "gluttonous" places (by which I assume you are reffering to capitalist western democracies) than in those which really are subject to an oppressive minority (read: Africa and the Middle East). Not only do I believe our lifestyle is sustainable, but I think it is repressed by the fact that so many impoverished and uneducated people exist.

I think to look back upon the diseased, poor, struggling history of the world with longing and fondness is laughable. For a glimpse to the past, all one need do is observe those who haven't embraced modernity. I say put your money where your mouth is purchase a castle in Ghana (I hear they run cheap these days). It might be fun and creative to look to the past with that glitter in your eye, but I think it stands to reason that we are where we are because the past was itself: hard, crappy, and short for most people.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more.

A friend of mine with Texas Tech University's Petroleum Engineering Department has pointed out that oil sands represent an enormous potential source of hydrocarbons. Even though they are at this time uneconomical to recover, the economics and technology are virtually certain to change before other undeveloped sources are exhausted.

Another potential HC source is in the form of gas, primarily methane, trapped in high-pressure deep ocean ices. Called methane hydrates, many researchers believe there may be more energy locked in these deposits than the total of all petroleum so far extracted and in the known reserves.

A few links on methane hydrates:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

There are potentially problems associated with these resources and their recovery, but man is a clever critter and will, IMHO, survive if we don't just lay down and give up due to fatalism and negativity. Can't never could do anything.

Dave
 
SkepticJ said:
Any data so I can refute this?--> http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341
Click to expand...

Sorry, any evidence that oil will not peak in 30 years is wrong. It is probable that we are already very near the peak for conventional light sweet crude production.


A brand new book by Matt Simmons:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/047173876X/bookstorenow57-20/103-0892781-9161448


The real question is: How will the next 30 years play out.
Oil sands are being produced, but it is slow to bring on line. Huge capital and time is required to raise production.


Large companies are working on converting gas to liquids. I've read China expects to power it's cars with clean diesel from fields in East Asia. Except for North America, there is still lot's of natural gas.


Yahoo stock message board search on "gas to liquids"


http://search.messages.yahoo.com/search/messages?tag_M="gas+to+liquids"&fname_M=txt_main


Another large company (I think Shell, can't remember) says it will decide on the practicality of shale oil in the nest five years. That too has the difficulties of oil sands, probably more so.


It's likely that oil will not actually peak, but plateau. The transition may be quite difficult though.


message board post on shale oil:


http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=7081371&tid=cwei&mid=101380&sid=7081371
 
Talking about impending oil crisis and a return to primitive communal conditions is a sort of earth-first version of the rapture: those who clue in to the coming appocalypse will be able to live happily in its wake, while the rest of us oblivious schmucks will get our well-deserved comeuppance.
Click to expand...

When actually it's the other way around. The innovative, pragmatic, market-driven folks will be relatively just as successful 'post-appocalypse' as they are now. The markets may have different products and those products might be produced by different forms of energy but the competition will be just as fierce.
 
SkepticJ said:
Better yet, maybe you could come over to the thread I'm debating him/her on and help me out. Your arguments were so good I just cut and pasted them; I hope you don't mind.
Click to expand...
Damn, that's pretty weak. Especially after insinuating that davidm had plagiarized when he clearly hadn't.

Warning, there is some language that's not allowed on these forums--> http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3499&page=1&pp=25&onlybyuserid=0
Click to expand...
Eh? What language is not allowed on the FF? Oh, or did you mean there's language allowed there that isn't here?
 
So, would you have rather me re-typed their arguments in my own style, passing it off as my own arguments and data that I myself found? That, my friend, is what would be weak.


Yeah, we can say f*** over there, but not here.
 
SkepticJ said:
So, would you have rather me re-typed their arguments in my own style, passing it off as my own arguments and data that I myself found? That, my friend, is what would be weak.
Click to expand...
No, that's not weak. It's the difference between plagiarism and original writing. Cut-n-paste is plagiarism. Using your own words to restate information you glean elsewhere is original writing. Like when you had to write essays in grade school, they were just a restatement -- in your own words -- of information you gleaned from the textbook. Had you copied blocks of text right out of the textbook, the teacher would've failed you.

Yeah, we can say f*** over there, but not here.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone want to say that anyway? It's not even a word!
 
If you don't have the facts to hand, what makes you so certain that the argument about Peak Oil is actually wrong? Apart from your own ideological assumption that it is? Aren't you just doing exactly what Fundamentalists do when they wish to discredit environmentalism, that is arguing from a position of belief rather than facts, and then forcing what facts they can marshall into the theory you've already decided is true?

You know, you could have just plugged the phrase "Peak Oil" into Wikpedia to see what came up. Unsurprisingly, there is rather a lot of relevant and useful material there;

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

Including the rather interesting fact about one organisation that made the claim that Peak Oil may be expected in 30 years. Gosh, it turns out it was the United States Geological Survey... Hardly a bunch of tree hugging Gaia worshippers that lot. Still, who cares what they say, as long as a bunch of hippy types we personally don't like can't say "I told you so!", eh? All hail ideologically cherry-picked science!

Coming up next, the usual suspects tell us why Global Warming isn't a threat to mankind, even though GW Bush of all people finally admitted at Gleneagles that it was! And no doubt even more rolled eyes at the fact that the most sensible commentary, on a board which prides itself on it's supposed admiration for informed scientific opinion only, actually came from a poster called NoviceCrackPot. Be there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom