Yeah! Let's drill those suckers! Alaska, here we come!

Old news, they've been talking about this for years. The peak is going to hit by 2020 if it already hasn't.

It's going to screw the lower income brackets first, but eventually even politicians will actually care (instead of pretending to care), and alternatives will be put in place. We already know *how* to get around this - nuke power plants, a better electric grid, and electric cars - it's just that no one is willing to do what needs to be done.

so, since I'm in *favor* of more non-fossil fuel power plants, electric cards, and improvements to the electric grid, I say "good"

We sit back, relax and breath for a moment and then prepare ourselves for the reality that it will cost more at the pump than the past couple years. I remember reading about Peak Oil for the first time five years ago and being quite gloomy as a result. Then I realized that as a species humanity is pretty adaptable and that while it would indeed suck, even in the worst case scenario we'll find a way to muddle through.

And we Americans don't knwo what the pinch at the pump feels like. We have it cheap compared to Europe.

In the UK there has been a fuel price escalator in the tax system for some time, and it hasn't ground Britain to a halt. when the cause is natural rather than artificial, the effects will still me negligible.

Drill use it while you have it. Tbqh a herd of elk didn't as bothered by an oil well isn't as BA you would think

And nuclear power needs to be expanded an something done with waste

*be negligible*, and I don't mean that, I mean, not severe.

On come on, this not only old news it goes back to the 70s. The dates also varies on who's figures you look at, plus they have pushed the date back and forth several times.

We use oil for everything. Everything.

The reality is that governments need to start investing large amount of money sooner rather than later in renewable energy resources. I mean, sure, most countries do have some sort of renewable energy research going on but it's really not enough.

Peak oil...Bah. there are new reserves that have been found that dwarf existing reserves...but due to politics we are not able to utilize them.

Let's see...oil prices are down around 50% from their peak over the past couple years. If we were anywhere near running our of oil (which we have been hearing for my entire life...) I believe the economics would indicate it.

If you owned the last bits of <pick your human need>...do you think you'd let it go on the cheap? Do you think those that *knew* it was running out wouldn't be snatching it up as fast as they could.

What a tired old argument...

This does *not* mean that I am against conservation and efficiency and the idea fo finding better sources of energy. The problem is the political *tactic* of claiming "peak oil! Peak Oil!" every time you want to push through "green" legislation. Don't you people get tired of allowing yourself to be manipulated by politicians looking for votes and scientists looking for research grants that skew and massage the data to support their "noble" causes?

@krellin: so.... you are saying that we will never run out of oil? and we will never need alternate energy sources? That oil will just continually be magically be produced and is will be ours for the taking?

i dont know whether this will happen in a few years time like most people claim or in many years. but one day it WILL be a problem. why not start properly preparing for it?

I think it's past the point of disbelief. The graph was drawn by the United States Department of Energy, and the United States military’s Joint Forces Command concurs with the overall picture.
To deny it now is just... well denial.

Why is it that these sorts of graphs that predict the future never seem to take into account the invisible hand of supply and demand? Currently our oil is dirt cheap so naturally, the price has a far far way to rise and consumers of oil have a lot of ways of cutting back that are not yet being utilized. It's not like supply is going to drop off a cliff--nobody is saying that, but they seem to be acting like it will.

Am I missing something here? Does anyone know why adjustments aren't made to their ever-rising demand curve to account for anticipated rises in price? Also, Sicarius, I'd expect you of all people not to take what the US Dept. of Energy/Joint Forces Command say as the gospel truth. Or are you becoming a statist all of a sudden?

" It's not like supply is going to drop off a cliff--nobody is saying that, but they seem to be acting like it will."

It's not going to drop off a cliff but slowly our demand (for numerous reasons, higher populations and more developing countries among them) will rise over the available supply. Maybe we will find larger bodies of oil than we have ever dreamed of that will keep us going for decades more. But to me it just makes sense to think about it now and to put measures into place for a smooth transition off oil than to get to that point and go "crap... we need something else"

Having seen the same prediction for almost 4 decades with constant revisions pushing back D-Day, I'm skeptical of the dates but not of the long term outcome. The the kickers are how fast Asia will increase it's use, verse how fast we can find and tap unused sources. But I'm not going to panic. Coal conversion will work when prices get high enoff. There also other dirty fuels like oil shale. The alternative is natural gas AKA methane, is abundent and cleaner with an inplaced infrastructure, and any motor can be converted. There are also other possibilities out there also. The road might get bumpy but it will pass.

@warsprite pretty much sums my feelings. We shouldn't be panicking. But we should start acting towards a sustainable energy source (or at least have numerous unsustainable lined up)

I chose that graph because I (mistakenly) believed that the general webDip population would concentrate on the figures instead of trying to claim it has some sort of left (right/liberal/conservative/anarchist) bias. I certainly do not take what the USDE for absolute truth, but every other graph I could possibly dig up would have shown basically the same thing (and I looked to see)

I'm not saying we should panic like chicken little. But I do think it's a sobering truth. Well to some.

btw, you all realize that windmills, solar panels, hydroelectricity, geo-thermal etc. all use oil right? we use oil for everything.

Ok, this is silly. How the *hell* can I be on the same side as Sicarius?

With the exception of a handful of loons, no one seriously believes that oil is not a finite, nonrenewable resource. Therefore, there will eventually come a point where the recovery costs - in input energy and labor - is less that the energy generated by the combustion of the oil. Prices will sharply increase before this point, but eventually no matter how much cash you throw at the problem, it isn't going to be economical to drill for more oil.

Now, there will still be *oil* drilled after that point, because you don't necessarily need to use energy generated from oil to recover oil, but, still, we're not talking $3 a gallon at the pump.

Will there be an economic cost for the increase in oil price? You bet - one of the things that led to the housing crisis was that people were putting more and more of their income into the fuel tank, and had less to throw at shiny new houses. Fully granting that there's a big difference between $10 extra to fill up the gas tank and a $500,000 home, people *perceived* that they were worse off, and hence were less willing to speculate on housing. As an aside, that probably is a good thing, because as bad as things are, they would have been even worse if the bubble had gotten bigger before it popped.

But anyway, yes, there will be a cost - energy prices in general will rise, and energy is an input in pretty much everything. If you can't power the tractor, you can't grow corn. If you can't move the truck, you can't get the shoes to market.

This is undeniable.

Where the question lies is a) when will this happen and b) how sharp will the spike be.

A) is less of a concern than B) - as fuel prices rise, alternatives become more attractive. Tree huggers will probably be less anti-nuclear plant when they realize their electric cars need electricity, and, hey, these rolling blackouts are a pain in the ass.

B) is the problem - if the spike is huge enough, there isn't *time* to adjust to the lack of petroleum.

Alternatives *are* being researched in many cases, and if some of them are implemented, the demand for oil will drop, giving more time to find alternatives for the rest before the last well is dry.

Are they doing a *good enough* job doing this research? Personally, I don't feel so, but I'm not exactly doing the research, am I? And even if they're not, there is fuck all I realistically can do about it. Well, except tell my home owners association that their 'solar cells are ugly, we don't want them on the roof' policy is idiotic, but I'm not exactly hanging out in the HOA meetings.

And there's the key - *if* you feel this is a problem, what you *can* do, you probably *should* do. The teeth-gritting part of it is that you're giving the people who *aren't* paying attention more time to fuck off, but just because everyone else is fiddling while Rome burns doesn't mean you need to. You'll still have cold beer while they're frying with no AC.

There are huge amounts of oil to be got at in the form of shale and tar sands that can keep us going for over a thousand years (ignoring environmental factors). The only effect of peak oil from traditional supplies will be a steady increase in prices. There is sadly no danger of us running out of stuff to burn any time soon.

@Oct - yes and no. You're forgetting the input energy part of the problem

I wouldn't worry about peak oil unless you are poor and vulnerable. Why? Because you are on the fronts lines of both the enviornmental and economic impacts of the inevitable crisis.

If you are wealthy and have links to power structures... meh, you'll be okay for a long while after peak oil, so I wouldn't worry. Entire communities of societies 'dregs' will falter and die before you start having to change your lifestyle, let alone worry about food and security.


Now for the delicious irony... guess who gets to make the decisions about energy policy!?

That's right! The rich and powerful! :)

Screw the %&#@)* disposessed.

"Ok, this is silly. How the *hell* can I be on the same side as Sicarius?"

Because we're both intelligent creatures capable of rational thought? I dont get it, because we have different politics we're diametrically opposed beings?
I never understood why people are so focused on disagreements, rather than agreements. Its not our differences that really matter, its our similarities. I may just be a name and a little box of text to you, but somewhere I'm a real person with hopes and fears and concerns and dreams and aspirations and sorrows and joys. and you are too. We all are. So easy to forget sometimes. Maybe y'all should think about that the next time you want to be so wantonly vitriolic. In other words, some of you seem to try so hard to be assholes.... why? whats the purpose? Does it make you feel better about yourselves to angrily type at someone you have never and probably will never meet, with little or no provocation? Thats immaturity at it's worst. No one ever got anything by being an internet douchebag, except maybe some small measure of strange vicarious self satisfaction that has no real basis or merit.
I know we cant all 'just get along' but holy shit can we at least be civil? Your biting comments dont make you appear any more intelligent or clever or 'cool'.
You just come off as a total fuck-bag, and whats more, severly inhibit any real intelligent disscussion from occuring.


ANYWAY

You/I are/am right, we use oil for EVERYTHING, from food, clothes, houses, transportation, entertainment, hygeine, everything. Actually, I challenge someone to name something we use in our everyday lives, that doesnt use oil at some stage of it's "life". We are utterly dependent on oil in every single facet of our lives. Oil is the lifeblood of this civilization. Now it's running out. (don't pull bullshit word games, when you start using any finite resource it's running out immediately upon first usage, and now the production has peaked. this means there will never be more oil in the world than there is right now. then there will be less and less everyday as the demand for it rises and rises.)
We're more dependent on oil than the Aztecs were on corn. as strategos pointed out, we need oil to grow corn.

Demand begins to surpass supply in the next few years. then the gap just widens from there. Where's the infrastructure to replace our civilizations lifeblood? What is there to replace it with? Realistically?
there is nothing that can replace oil completely, that exists now, or can feasibly be put into place before we start to really feel the effects. And 'feeling the effects' does not mean walking to your mailbox instead of driving your hummer AKA paying a few extra or multitudinous dollars at the pump. Feeling the effects means that in a small way or (more likely) in a big way, we will have less and less and less of the things that we aquire sp via oil. read: Everything.

Worst case: End of civilization altogether, a total collapse.
most probable: a very large drop in what is referred to as 'quality of life' or 'living standards'
Best case: some unknown technology completely independent of oil that we have until this point put little to no research or real effort into will somehow overnight (overnight meaning in a few short years) magically replace the infrastructure that every aspect of our lives is founded on.


NOW, this is not to say that without oil we will all die horrible agonizing deaths. Humans have lived perfectly fine without oil for millions of years, barely acknowledging, or even being aware of it's existence. Humans don't need oil. But our globalized industrial civilization is utterly dependent upon it.
You can grow your own food, even produce your own electricity (my friend is working on a steam engine with a mono-tube flash boiler and wood gassifier) But you cannot support industrial agriculture, or the worlds growing energy needs.

@Sic, re "Because we're both intelligent creatures capable of rational thought? I dont get it, because we have different politics we're diametrically opposed beings?"

That was mostly a joke. I'm perfectly willing to concede we don't see eye to eye on most things, but I'd like to think I don't reflexively dismiss an argument just because of the person who is proposing it.

As an aside, to people mentioning nuclear power, remember that nuclear fuels are fossil fuels too. They are also finite, and if there is a huge demand for new nuclear power stations all over the world as a result of peak oil, nuclear fuels will also, over time, become scarce. That said, we may need to rely on a nuclear 'stop-gap' as part of the solution.

Jaime, while I concede nuclear fuels are nonrenewable, they are *not* a fossil fuel.

There are also possible fuels that do not include Uranium - Thorium, for example. And of course we can always use breeder technology to create more fuel, but that tends to 'breed' Plutonium, and for some strange reason no one is really thrilled by the thought of having tons of Plutonium all over the place.

Sorry, you're right, they're not a "fossil" fuel - I agree that was poor terminology on my part. They are however finite and non-renewable, that was my point.

Technically every source of energy is nonrenewable to a degree, but until we get an SPS system in place to beam solar power down, there is no way in hell we can meet our energy needs with wind/hydro/geothermal/solar

w/h/g/s or only non-renewable if the sun goes boom or the earth suffers heat death or the moon is torn from our orbit... You get the idea. Baring unexpected natural disaster, these four are feectively renewable and can be used to provide the elctric needed for a region. Drive from Indy to Chicago and you will go through this most awesome of wind farms. The wind farm at Fowler Ridge currently provides 400 MW of electricity and is expected to provide 600 MWh on completion. That's about 35,000 typical homes now and >50,000 upon full completion.

No saw no claim that your figures were L wing nonsense. In fact the only disagreement people have is the timing and the response. As for increase in price I lived through the first gas shortage in the 70s when prices went from less than quarter to over 35 cents a gallon about a 50 percent increase. Doom sayers claimed it was the end of modern society and MAD MAX was produced. I bought a VW Rabbit and laughed at people who cryed when they filled their gas hog, and at the doom sayers both. Society will adapt with minimal pain unless people are panicked into something stuped.

Remember the lines at the pumps, warsprite? People actually thought we'd run out of fuel for our cars or start seeing rationing and were topping off every chance they got.

Yea a few fights, and some people buying cans of gas to stash(not good if you keep a full can in your car in the summer).

I always found that funny as they only had like a one or two gallon can so they could go all of 30 miles in that day, but then I saw one idiot doing the Mad Max thing filling up a station wagon full of cans. I hope to God he didn't leave them there or even in a garage.

We had one gas can in the barn with the lawnmower and it was for the mower. I have to say at least my parents were sane.

I recall a few people getting sick from the fumes in their car.:P The Worse of it was all the panic buying caused stations to run out faster than they should have, magnifying in peoples minds the degree of the shortage.

Yeah, the news coverage turned the "shortage" into a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one.

So lets get specific.
2 years from now, demand begins to exceed supply. (slowly at first)
What does it look like? what happens and who is affected?
5 years? 10? after that is maybe too far ahead to speculate.

They are confusing reserves (supply) verse extration rate (supply on the market). Extraction at current rates or higher will continue for a several years past the down curve in the chart. The chart does not seem to include reserves that are currently to expensive, only those recoverable near current prices which is fairly low now(which in part explains the reason these charts have changed over the years). So in 2-5 years I don't expect any sudden change in supply or price. What you will see are prices going up gradually over several years. Slow at first, than increaseingly faster new reserves will come on as the price increases.

Continued: Also new types of energy generation will start to replace current sources. This will also moderate price increases and demand. In 10-20 years methane(natural gas) useage will increase enoff to displace much of the crude still used. Many plastics etc already start as methane gas.

sortof a tangent but relevant.
Whats the cost of oil?
There have been 3 major spills recently, One in the gulf of mexico, one in china, and one in Michigan. I think there was also a large one in nigeria but I havnt been able to verify that.
What sort of bio-diversity are we loosing?

I think several facts exist:
1. There is a HUGE quantity of oil still available to the planet
- No previous study has accurately forecasted an actual limit
- There should be little if any expectation that any current study accurately does so
2. The supply that is least expensive to produce is produced first
- As the cheapest supplies are exhausted the next most expensive will be tapped
3. The ongoing cost of production will increase over time
- New technologies are likely to make all production cheaper over time
- Will the compounded effect of these be more than negligible?
4. Costs of providing energy from other sources will decrease over time
- That handy new technology thing
5. As 3. and 4. above juxtapose, alternative sources will be used
6. This cycle will repeat for a very long time with a lot of other natural resources

Some questions come to mind:
A. Should people/states/groups try to impact 5. above ?
B. Has anything outside of the profit motive provided for long term commercial success?
C. What might some unintended consequences of this be?


C. is the real thing that should provoke thought but is almost always ignored in consideration of these grand policy discussions.

As long as they dont turn to bio-fuels. What a god-awful idea that is. Instead of growing food to eat, lets use it to power our televisions!!! yay!!! DRiving to the store never felt so good as when you know you are directly taking food from people mouths to do it!

But of course, the right of the rich to be wasteful trumps the right of the poor to eat.


Oh this is a tangent from another thread about human rights, but I consider water to be a human right.

Bio-fuels are scams for the most part that's for sure. Buy some estimations for every unit you get, you have to use the equivent 0.9 units producing it from planting to distillation, and shipping. There also other problems such as the amout need to make a difference in supply, keeping them "dry" since ethanol mixes with water. Not very practical for even the rich. However there may be limited use of bio-fuels.

The Gulf spill did not have to be. By their history alone BP looks to be dangerously lax in their maintance and safety(The recent Alaskan pipline spill, and refinery fire in Texas). If what is being reported about the events leading up to the gulf spill is correct, somebody needs to go to jail. However that does not mean drilling and transport of oil can't be done safely and without major incident. What is needed proper oversite during operations, and that proper maintance is done on refineries and pipelines. Also fines and penalties need to be more severe to reflect potental and actual damages. Goverment oversite and regulation needs to be streamlined and simplified to make regulation better, more transparent, and easyer to enforce, instead of clutter of agencies and regs.