Peak Oil... again

Not only a Hubert reference on a Fallout3 is a good idea, but i suspect the people that came out with the ideas for the Fallout timeline knew his work already.

Still that doesn't mean he was right :)

Sina the two last drills at Brazil and Angola (a friend of mine works there) will pump millions just in the next years, and again this is not counting with the Caspian sea reserves, wich are huge. Will production peak because of geological factors? No, again no. Will demand far outpass suply, given the Chinese and Indian boom, wich goes to your last question? Maybe, if the Middle East doesn't get some order (i didn't say peace, just order) and the States around the Caspian Sea don't start to work together in better terms, suspition abounds.

But again these are political problems, not geologically induced shortages. This is my beef with Hubert ideas, for the rest go on with all of the Fallout style predictions, we're at a point that have to start taking them seriously, i already said that twice.

But because of Geopolitical conditions, ok? :)
 
Its not that we're running out of oil, its that we are quickly approaching the point when can't produce enough energy to keep using it.

I expect the peak to happen any time between yesterday and the next three years. And when it does, get ready for globalization to turn into regionalization.
 
Ozrat said:
I expect the peak to happen any time between yesterday and the next three years. And when it does, get ready for globalization to turn into regionalization.
Click to expand...

Why, stop the presses! A peaknik thinks the end of the global economy is near!

Can you say 'Oil Shale" Mr. Peaknik sir?
 
I find it funny that John just advocated the USA being dependent on Canada...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

P.S.

There's no guarantee they'll find a way to change it into normal oil using less energy than you can get from the oil.
 
John Uskglass said:
Can you say 'Oil Shale" Mr. Peaknik sir?
Click to expand...

Can you say "nearly half of oil shale's energy value is consumed during the extraction and refining process and exponentially more damage done to the environment in the same process"?
 
Roshambo said:
John Uskglass said:
Can you say 'Oil Shale" Mr. Peaknik sir?
Click to expand...

Can you say "nearly half of oil shale's energy value is consumed during the extraction and refining process and exponentially more damage done to the environment in the same process"?
Click to expand...

More importantly - can you say it three times fast?
 
John Uskglass said:
Why, stop the presses! A peaknik thinks the end of the global economy is near!

Can you say 'Oil Shale" Mr. Peaknik sir?
Click to expand...
'Peaknik?'

Did you pick that up somewhere CCR, or thought it up yourself?
 
I thought it was, because CCR seems to live in his own enclosed and idealized world that none of us understand?

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
Still I'd choose John as the realist over Ozrat here, Vaulty my boy...

A scientific theory that consistently makes wrong predictions should at some point be accepted as theoretically sound but practically not yet applicable, like global warming pseudo-sciences.

Scientists have a hard time accepting that they don't know everything, and lefty hippies and righty fascists like Ozzy and CCR here make use of that fact gladly to support whatever their opinion is with pseudo-facts.

Rather moronic, n'est pas?
 
I'm far more inclined to be worried about global warming (which I am) then about Peak Oil. Dissapearing glaciers and desertification tend to be somewhat more substantial and proveable then some bullshit psedoeconomic scare tactics.
 
But Peak Oil already occured, though not on a global scale. It happened in USA in the '70s, it happened in UK, it happened in a number of countries that were formerly major oil exporters but now depend on imports to sustain their economic growth. What more evidence does anyone need?

The *only* thing Hubbert was wrong about was the exact moment in time when global Peak Oil would occur. There are two basic reasons why Hubbert was off in his predictions: a) he couldn't anticipate the oil shocks of 1970s, and b) he couldn't know about all the oil discoveries that would be made in the second half of the 20th century. This deviation, though significant, has been correctly identified and explained away. It doesn't in any way change the fact that Hubbert's theory is mathematically and empirically correct.
 
There are still too many variables Ratty. Alternative sources of oil, continued boom in alternative fuels, etc....I think you seriously misunderestimate the ability of the global market to find a solution to a problem as massive as declining oil supplies.
 
Sure, John, but what does that have to do with Peak Oil? Hubbert's theory predicts the trend of oil production over time. Nothing more and nothing less. It certainly says anything about a subsequent collapse of civilization. Predictions of doom and gloom which have been springing up lately are based on the reality of Peak Oil combined with the reality of geopolitical conditions, available alternative energy sources and technologies. Almost all experts agree that oil production behaves just like Hubbert predicted, and their views differ only in how dire the economic consequences will be.
 
Why do we bother with having actual people participate in this debate over and over again? We could copy the arguments from the first time (and from the second time and from the third time...), and set up bots to replay this for all eternity over the forums.

By the way, Ratty, you did read this, correct? The issue is hardly nailed down, as you present it.
 
What worries me is that those like John place a high premium on their faith in the market, that the market will eventually find a way out.

Perhaps.

That there may be more oil out there that is increasingly accessible and potential because of changing technology- ok. But then you also have to factor in changing levels of demand.

Ratty is right, the US did peak out in the 1970s. Petroleum resources as in fossil fuels, are finite. I think it rather unfair to criticize a scientist who wrote an article decades ago about a prediction based on what was known at the time on the faith of others that "the market will find a way."

If the market "finds a way" it will be in part because of the necessity due to reduced access or availability of affordable fossil fuels.
 
Also, "Peak Oil" isn't when all oil starts to go downhill, it's when demand outweighs supply, and according to the mass of SUVs in the US, there's plenty of oblivious yuppies who don't care if they get shitty gas mileage.

Shale oil and many of the alternatives are amusing when you factor in the production wouldn't be anywhere as fast, affordable, nor would it really be able to replace the current supply of oil through volume or logistics. Then comes the question of alternative fuel stations, and to fully take the place of conventional oil, many different alternatives would have to be put into place at the same time.

Cross-country travel? Good luck, we'll be seeing trains come back into fashion, as the alternatives often don't transport well, and if you drive into a region that has switched to a different fuel system, then you're probably fucked.
 
John Uskglass said:
Ozrat said:
I expect the peak to happen any time between yesterday and the next three years. And when it does, get ready for globalization to turn into regionalization.
Click to expand...

Why, stop the presses! A peaknik thinks the end of the global economy is near!

Can you say 'Oil Shale" Mr. Peaknik sir?
Click to expand...
Go back and read the first sentence in my post, kthx.

Also, I said nothing about the end of the global economy, I said that it would revert to regionalization. Transportation only goes as far as the fuel/cost/profit will take it. I expect that the internet will survive as global communications is a great tool for humanity to continue sustaining, but I doubt that computers will continue to evolve after that point thus leading back to garage computer engineers with boxes of spare hardware. I also expect the market for food, water and building materials to radically become a local economy, if not self-provided by those who choose to provide more for themselves.

The economy will continue, but the lifestyle of the McWalmart warrior will cease to exist.
 
I am kind of curious about this, so maybe someone can fill me in: Coal can be converted to oil, right? Like they did in WWII? How inefficent is that process? Because I think there is massive amounts of coal still left, far more than oil. At least, I think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top