COMMENTS: 119
Have We Really Hit Peak Oil?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The same day, the House approved a Senate plan to suspend oil deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in hopes of diverting that oil to the market, thus lowering the pump price a tiny amount. A week earlier, a handful of Senators proposed a bill threatening a trade dispute with members of OPEC if the organization doesn't stop "its anti-competitive practices and illegal export quotas on oil."
It's understandable that our elected leaders would want to do something about the meteoric rise of gasoline, diesel, and heating oil prices that are now bankrupting independent truckers and forcing many folks in colder states to choose between being able to stay warm and being able to drive to work. Yet efforts like the ones just mentioned are based on a profound misperception of why oil prices are rising. The real problem is summed up in the phrase "Peak Oil."
Petroleum is a finite substance and we have reached the inevitable point at which it simply isn't possible to increase the rate at which we extract it from the ground. Most oil producing countries, including the US, have already seen their glory days and are now watching output from their wells gradually dwindle. Only a few nations are early in the production cycle and able to ramp up the rate of flow. Here is a concise definition of Peak Oil from my colleague Chris Skrebowsi, the editor of Petroleum Review in London. He says: "Global oil production falls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds gains in output from those that are expanding."
Well, how are we doing? Who's winning, the decliners or expanders?
According to last year's scorecard, the decliners won. The same happened in 2006. And that's with oil prices at record highs, presumably offering every incentive for nations that can produce more oil to do so. Does this mean we are at the all-time peak of global oil flow rates now? Not necessarily. There are large new production projects coming on line this year and next, including one in Saudi Arabia that will add several hundred thousand barrels a day to that nation's productive capacity.
However, on the other side of the balance there is some very bad news. Russia, the world's leading oil producing nation and the country that has been responsible for the lion's share of the world's production growth over the past decade, has gone into decline. Optimistic analysts hope Russia will be able to keep production more or less flat for a few years, but that may not be possible. The past few months have seen reductions in output. Other important exporting nations like Nigeria and Mexico are also in trouble.
The timing of the global peak may still be unclear. But surely we can't afford, as a matter of national policy, to assume that it will be decades in the future -- given that all of the symptoms are staring us in the face now. Some economists say that current high oil prices are largely due to the falling value of the dollar, or to speculation. Simple arithmetic tells us that dollar depreciation has added only ten or fifteen percent to oil's cost over the past two to three years.
As for speculation, one has to ask why investors are choosing to park their money in oil contracts. It must be because they see the fundamentals supporting rising prices. In a situation where demand is headed higher but supply isn't, speculation is inevitable. So speculation is a symptom; it isn't the cause of the problem. Given all this, how much sense does it make to spend our time and effort blaming OPEC for not producing more, or to neglect saving some petroleum for the inevitable point in the future when our problem isn't just high oil prices, but actual shortages of fuel for emergency vehicles and food delivery trucks?
If I were a Saudi or a Kuwaiti, I would be advising my government not to pump more oil. After all, these countries earn nearly all of their income from selling the stuff; once the oil's gone, what can they do for an encore? No, it makes more sense for them to husband the resource, sell it for higher prices, and invest in renewable energy sources at home in preparation for the day when nature's patrimony is gone. In fact, however, in recent years most OPEC countries have been pumping flat out; only the Saudis claim to have any spare production capacity to speak of.
But isn't it a good idea for some country somewhere to keep some capacity in reserve in case of a real emergency -- a major pipeline outage, another hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or a revolution in one of the other main producing countries? Should efforts at responsible resource management make these people our enemies?
The blame game makes for good sound bites on the floor of Congress. It plays well with folks back home who are struggling to find the money to fill up their SUVs but can't find Saudi Arabia on a map. All they have been taught to know is that Arabs have lots of oil and they are bad people. But think where this might lead: suppose we get tough with the Saudis and end up destabilizing the kingdom so that forces unfriendly to us take over. Then we will feel more or less forced to invade in order to maintain access to our national drug of choice. Where would it end? Does any of this help?
Rather than looking for villains, we should be exploring how we can adapt to having less oil next year, and even less the year after that. Rebuilding our oil-dependent transport, agricultural, and manufacturing infrastructure is going to be a big job, and it's going to take time. So the sooner we start, the better. The real problem is that we use too much oil. It's that simple and that difficult. If we truly want to reduce our vulnerability to high prices, the best way to do so is to reduce consumption. One way or another, we will adapt.
We will drive less, we will fly less, and we will grow our food more locally with fewer inputs. But these changes will go far more smoothly if we plan for them, rather than being forced into them at the nozzle of an empty gas pump. There is a cliché in action films: "We can do this the hard way, or we can do it the easy way." Blaming OPEC while doing nothing to rein in our domestic demand for petroleum only ensures that we will be adapting to Peak Oil the hard way.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on May 20, 2008 12:26 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fractional Reserve Banking is really leveraged debt accumulation. Since, when money is created through checking accounts, the interest due is not created, more debt must be created to monetize these interest payments. We are in a never ending geometric spiral of debt creation. When no debt is created there isn't enough money in the system and the bankruptcies pile up and a downward spiral begins, known as deflation. So without growth we go bankrupt.
What has this to do with Peak Oil. Well Peak Oil mean Peak Growth and bankruptcy for any country using fractional reserve banking. There is a solution to smooth our transition to an economy with less energy: Government printed money that doesn't come from debt. This helps break the slowing of the economy because it keeps money circulating through the system.
Anyone who has looked at the problem of Peak Oil can tell you it means Peak Credit therefore Peak Growth and the guaranteed national bankruptcy caused by fractional reserve banking. Peak Oil necessarily means a lower standard of living but getting there will be a whole lot easier with government printed money that is not borrowed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hmmm
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Hmmm
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Hmmm
Posted by: crazy carlos
» Fractional Reserve Banking is fine. Income Redistribution and Capital Controls will stimulate growth
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thornwolf on May 20, 2008 2:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile, a well-designed electric motor is about 95% efficient, meaning 95 cents of every dollar spent on electricity for that motor goes directly into turning it's main shaft, not into heat. Only five cents is lost, not 80 cents. That means an electric (not hybrid) car would cost between one and two cents a mile to operate, compared to upwards of 20 cents a mile for gasoline, and that 20-cent figure will only climb.
You choose. Do you want to pay a penny or two a mile, or 20, 30, 50 cents, a dollar a mile and soon more? If we all demand electric cars and stop buying gasoline cars, then peak oil will become a marginal notation, not a cause for war and bankruptcy.
Why are consumers so sleepyheaded? Is it the dumbing down of TV? Could be. How many gasoline car ads are on TV? Probably more than all other ad types combined. Isn't it odd how the car companies push this dinosaur so hard and lose money so dramatically, and the consumer still plays along. Hello!?!?!?! Anyone home?!?!?!?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Great idea, BUT...
Posted by: willie.horton
» RE: Great idea, BUT.. [So don't plug them in a 6.00 p.m.
Posted by: Squarehead
» You will get maybe a mile and have to push your car back.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» If any "engineer" thinks these cars only go one mile, they need to turn in their diplomas
Posted by: Beck
» RE: You will get maybe a mile and have to push [ Well, no.
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: You will get maybe a mile and have to push [ Well, no.
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: You will get maybe a mile and have to push [ Well, no.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: You will get maybe a mile and have to push [ Well, no.
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: You will get maybe a mile and have to push [ Well, no.
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Great idea, BUT.. [So don't plug them in a 6.00 p.m.
Posted by: KiwiBR
» RE: Great idea, BUT.. [So don't plug them in a 6.00 p.m.
Posted by: Squarehead
» I Laugh...
Posted by: LeaderofMen
» Neither of you know about batteries that haven't been invented
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: I Laugh...
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: 20% Efficiency vs 95% Efficiency, Take Your Pick
Posted by: opmoc
» RE: 20% Efficiency vs 95% Efficiency, Take Your Pick
Posted by: Franb
» Consider the entire picture
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: Consider the entire picture [Suitable motors have existed for many years.
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Consider the entire picture [Suitable motors have existed for many years.
Posted by: maxfactor
» RE: Consider the entire picture [Suitable motors have existed for many years.
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willie.horton on May 20, 2008 3:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just drive down the street here in Delaware or southeastern PA, and you can spot one heck of a deal on a slightly-used American pickup truck or SUV.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 20, 2008 4:15 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The January 2008 issue has an article on solar power and an
article on wind power. Solar power needs $420 Billion is
subsidies to be viable by 2050. That is TOO LATE because
civilization will have fallen by then, and positive feedbacks to the
climate change will have kicked in by then.
See: http://science-community.sciam.
com/blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422
Solar power is just not affordable now or any time within 60
years. An "energy storage" scheme used in McIntosh, Alabama
actually uses natural gas as the real source of energy while
pretending to use energy stored by compressing air. That is the
problem with storing energy from wind and solar to use when the
sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. The efficiency is so
low that what you really have is a fossil fuel power plant wearing
a disguise. The windmills and solar collectors are just
decorations or camouflage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Thanks for
Posted by: boydranchitos
» Nobody pays me to post here. Do the math for yourself.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» Truth remains true.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Solar and wind power are NOT free [Why do you keep posting this 'Dan M blogger' shite?
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Solar and wind power are NOT free [Why do you keep posting this 'Dan M blogger' shite?
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 20, 2008 4:25 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
blog-entry/Dan-Ms-Blog/
Cost-Solar-Power/300005422
The Cost of Solar Power From Dan M.'s Blog
by Dan M.
"One source that seems good is solarbuzz.com(1)(2). From the
name, it sounds like a pro solar energy source, but the data seem
to be realistic.
From the first referenced page at this site, we see that residential
costs have dropped 6% to 37.59 cents/kwH, while
commercial/wholesale costs have dropped 0.6% between July
2000 and November 2007 to 21.37 cents/kwH. "
"For comparison purposes, the wholesale price of electricity was
0.06 cents/kwH. "
Dividing the solar cost by the wholesale grid price, we see that
solar power costs 356.2 to 626.5 times as much as electricity from
the wholesale grid during the daytime.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The price of solar power
Posted by: russkie3
» RE: The price of solar power/The price ain't the whole picture
Posted by: eyejam
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 20, 2008 4:55 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a "spinning reserve" is required in most locations. If you are
running the steam powered generator at the spinning reserve rate,
you may as well use the steam as your energy source and forget
about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not sources of
energy for the grid until we have room temperature
superconductors or super batteries. There are special locations
and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but wind cannot
replace coal and nuclear any time soon.
Those windmills are just nuisances that electric companies are
forced to put up with. They aren't really reducing the need for
coal because the wind is too variable. The coal fire has to be kept
burning to maintain a "spinning reserve." There is one and only
one practical way to replace coal fired power plants at the present
time. That one way is nuclear power. Nuclear power works for
base load and nuclear power is clean and safe. Nuclear fuel is
recyclable. There is no such thing as nuclear waste.
We don't have batteries that are good enough and cheap enough to
solve the problem of wind variability yet. We need research into
energy storage and room temperature superconductors. The
research will take an unknown amount of time. We don't have
that time. Batteries and room temperature superconductors
have been under research for a very long time already, so don't
expect any breakthroughs next week.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Multiple energy backups,interrelated. Not standing alone.
Posted by: Franb
» RE: Pumped Water
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Pumped Water
Posted by: Franb
» RE: spinning reserve
Posted by: eboy
» RE: spinning reserve
Posted by: dougo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on May 20, 2008 5:06 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Countrywide wants your ass
Posted by: Forrest for the Trees
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opmoc on May 20, 2008 5:26 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However after a great deal of further research and objective analysis - I changed my view.
Its quite rare for people to change their views on something as important as this. They tend to adopt a kind of dogma, faith or belief which complies with an even stronger related faith or belief.
I tend to try and analyse important matters objectively without any faith bias. Of course I can still come to the wrong conclusions - but at least I am trying to find the real truth - rather than believing someone elses propaganda
I'm not an expert in forecasting future energy demand and supplies - but this guy is - and he too has changed his mind.
Confessions of An Ex-Peak Oil Believer
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Peak oil has to come sometime
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Confessions of An Ex-Peak Oil Believer
Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: Confessions of An Ex-Peak Oil Believer
Posted by: opmoc
» Confessions of A Born Again Peak Oil Believer
Posted by: Mattz70
» And what was the catalyst for this change?
Posted by: Iconoclast421
» The Real Cause of "PEAK OIL"
Posted by: opmoc
» Get help
Posted by: dadux
» RE: The "abiotic" oil theory is a pile of crap
Posted by: LRayn
» RE: The "abiotic" oil theory is a pile of crap
Posted by: opmoc
» RE: The "abiotic" oil theory is a pile of crap
Posted by: sasha40
» RE: Confessions of An Ex-Peak Oil Believer
Posted by: Future4u
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sophiej on May 20, 2008 5:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blogbooks on May 20, 2008 6:07 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The future is a return to feudalism with the masses in America subsistence farming and too poor to travel while our overlords travel around on their 300 million dollar mega-yachts.
This is the future that the green left seems to be embracing. I have to question why. I suppose it is similar to the green European politicians that drive in SUVs unaffordable to the average citizen of their country, or Al Gore flying around in his private jet.
Ah, watching the rats on the right and left climb over one another to be part of that small group of neo-nobility that will dominate the new world order for millennium is amusing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who will drive less? Who will fly less? Who will return to subsistence farming?
Posted by: Inlander
» Do you even speak English?
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: Do you even speak English?
Posted by: Squarehead
» Free form adventurous?
Posted by: Inlander
» RE: Free form adventurous?
Posted by: Dboy
» RE: Who will drive less? Who will fly less? Who will return to subsistence farming?
Posted by: opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 20, 2008 6:11 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The search engines do not understand the web pages they find for you. They are
just machines. They have no idea of whether or not the web pages they find tell
the truth. In the US, we have "freedom of speech," which means that nobody has
to prove that anything is true before publishing it. So anybody can make a web
site that says anything that person wants to say. There is no reason to believe
either we have or we have not reached peak oil because of some web site or
because of many web sites.
How hard is it to find the truth on the web? Very hard. Most web sites have a
monetary reason for existing. People who know the truth and are willing to tell
you the truth don't have much economic reason to do so. It is hard to make money
by telling the truth. Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence
or overestimating the gullibility of the average person. So how are you going to
find out the truth for sure? There is only one way. You have to become a
scientist. You will have to spend a minimum of 4 years in college to get the
minimum degree, the B.S. You should really spend more like 15 years and get a
post doctoral degree. Then you have to go do the research for yourself. That
requires money..............
THERE ARE ZERO HUMAN AUTHORITIES.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature
owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and
replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the
only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to other people in the
room. What goes on inside one person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on
an X-ray or with another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple absolute lack of
faith in everything else. Do not trust any human, not even yourself. Trust only
the experiments that you personally perform. Otherwise, you will be misled.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I think you need to read your own last paragraph, over and over
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: I think you need to read your own last paragraph, over and over
Posted by: Squarehead
» "If you pay someone a lot of money........
Posted by: Inlander
» I have done a lot of experiments. You can't do them all.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: I have done a lot of experiments. You can't do them all.
Posted by: Squarehead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gregory Kruse on May 20, 2008 6:42 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's so bad? - When you can't afford to work!
Posted by: SteveO
» RE: What's so bad? Should have thought of that earlier, hey
Posted by: Inlander
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Democritus on May 20, 2008 7:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing we can do is drive more slowly. When we faced the OPEC embargo in the late'70's and early '80's, our government imposed a national speed limit of 55 mph. Why doesn't our present administration and our congress impose these same limits? It's no good to say that such limits can work if self-imposed. When I drive at 60 mph on interstate highways, I frequently get passed by trucks and SUVs doing 70 mph and more. Only a strongly enforced speed limit can make these people act in their own best interests and slow down. Money collected from speeding tickets can be used for improvements to highways, tunnels, and bridges.
The second thing we can do is raise the fuel tax on gasoline. The behavior of drivers shows that even $4.00 per gallon gasoline doesn't faze them. This tax money can be used for improvements to our ageing infrastructure and for more and better public transportation. Gasoline in Europe now costs the equivalent of $8.00 per gallon. Consequently, Europeans drive less in more fuel-efficient vehicles and rely more on public transportation.
Third, we need to put more pressure on auto manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. This means not only making more hybrids and electric-powered vehicles, but it means making these vehicles lighter. It's the weight of the vehicle that is responsible for using the most fuel. Making a car chassis out of polyurethane not only makes for a lighter car, but it is even stronger than steel, making it safer.
How do we do all these things? It's clear that we can't depend on our present administration and congress to do it. So let's elect people next November who will do it. If we don't demand a responsible government through our votes, then we'll be no better than those people who complain about the weather.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There is no way to keep the car "culture" going
Posted by: SteveO
» RE: There is no way to keep the car "culture" going
Posted by: Inlander
» Pressure auto manufacturers?
Posted by: Inlander
» RE: Are we really worried about high fuel prices?
Posted by: BCcovers
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TERRIROBSON on May 20, 2008 8:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Tar sands are NOT the answer
Posted by: Inlander
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kellysgarden on May 20, 2008 8:58 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Primary is the fact that the elite globalists of the world are intent on controlling this resource at ALL costs. Globalists don't want us to conserve, develop alternate sources of energy that are not already under their control, or have a plan for the future that is not within their preconceived plan.
This is the reason that all the wars fought in the last century are about grabbing control of energy resources.
Actually, this is the reason that secret globalist groups orchestrated 9/11.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whether Peak Oil is genuine or not
Posted by: Inlander
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fanny666 on May 20, 2008 9:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LINK
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tbone on May 20, 2008 9:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will provide one more car related measure that many of us can begin working on in our own communities:
Call your local DOT and ask them why all the stoplights on your commute to/from work force you to stop/start when traffic patterns and appropriate controls could be used to KEEP CARS MOVING!
The IC engine is notoriously wasteful at idle/unloaded conditions. Some estimates are nearly 50% more fuel consumption, while you sit there and wait for the damn light to turn green. Lets say you spend 20% of your commute stopped at a traffic light or due to traffic flow problems. Eliminating half of that could potentially save MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF FUEL A DAY! but instead we have ridculous lights that cause the effective speed limit to be lower than the posted because everyone must slow down for those stopped. This is a very simple change that could be implemented around the country. Call your congress critter and see what they think, who knows maybe they can get this one thing done and buy us a couple more years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: conserve [TURN THE ENGINE OFF,
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: conserve
Posted by: Inlander
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 20, 2008 11:01 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: opmoc on May 20, 2008 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quiet a startling achievement.
We certainly put the Nazi's out of business in Germany but didn't realise at the time that it was the Bush Family that put them there in the first place.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Sure they Won The War Moved to America and went To The Moon on Biomass Powered Rockets
Posted by: BCcovers
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davemcarthur on May 20, 2008 1:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You wrote
The real problem is summed up in the phrase "Peak Oil."…. . Here is a concise definition of Peak Oil from my colleague Chris Skrebowsi, the editor of Petroleum Review in London. He says: "Global oil production falls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds gains in output from those that are expanding."
I respectfully disagree with your statement. There are many reasons why the use of the “Peak Oil” symbol is unsustainable and fails to communicate the issues you allude to.
In brief:
The central issue is our stewardship of the carbon flows and balances of this planet. It is our sense of stewardship that determines the value each person puts on carbon in all its forms.
In terms of behavioural change, the most sustainable change and adaptation occurs when individuals enjoy hope. They enjoy a sense of transition within a framework of viable options.
Hubbards’ bell curve of mineral oil resources (on which the Peak Oil concept is based) engenders hopelessness because it frames all the focus on one carbon form – mineral oil. It works to reinforce our addictive use of mineral oil. The bell curve elicits in many people a sense of despair and desperation – the same sense of powerlessness that drug addicts experience as their habit becomes more habituated and the drug supply more difficult to maintain. They are increasingly filled with a sense of the inevitable downhill slide.
The use of the “Peak Oil” symbol also works to confuse the market price of mineral oil with its value. This is an extraordinary resource and the wise person knows its value is many thousands of dollars a 42-gallon barrel. This value can be extrapolated from its food and health producing potential and from a more general calculation that each barrel contains maybe 25000 man-hours of labour equivalent in a very convenient and mobile form. This amounts to a value per barrel of $500,000 if one accepts $20 is a reasonable payment for one hour of heavy labour lifting, pulling, pushing etc. Thus the wise person uses the resource sparingly regardless of whether market traders put a price of $2 or $200 or $2000 on a barrel.
In this context it is clear that the use of the “Peak Oil” symbol fails to have a meaningful relationship with the price of oil. As with drug pushers, the mineral oil traders will manipulate the price so as to maintain and enhance the addictive behaviour of the consumer. In some cases they provide free “hits” to hook people on the habit. Similarly it is common for mineral oil traders in New Zealand to supply cars to burn the product for deposits of $1NZ (about $US0.75. Mineral oil traders also play very influential roles in the media and Governments around the world. In New Zealand current addictive uses of mineral oil are heavily subsidised by all citizens, especially our young, through direct taxes, excess interest charges and inflation.
As mentioned the central issue is our stewardship of carbon. The use of the “Peak Oil” symbol also works to exclude the atmosphere from the combustion equation. Its total focus is on our capacity to extract mineral oil. It communicates little of the vital issues of the relative quality of the remaining reserves or the changing ratio of human beings per barrel of reserves. Concluding paragraph Part 2
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davemcarthur on May 20, 2008 1:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For all these and many more reasons the use of the “Peak Oil” symbol is unhelpful. I suggest it is more helpful to use a range of symbols to express the complexity of the situation and sustain hope. These might include use of symbols such as “Cheap Oil/Gas Age”, “passing” “transition” “Great Electric-Solar Age. In short the Cheap Oil/Gas Age has passed for even if we discover we can extract mineral oil and gas for little monetary expenditure the costs of our current uses of it to the atmospheric and biosphere balances that sustain us are very expensive. We are now in transition to the Great Electric-Solar Age in which our children will make sustainable uses of carbon we cannot imagine.
Enjoy hope
Dave McArthur
The Sustainability Principle of Energy
“When a symbol use works to deny change it will materially alter the potential of the universe (energy) in a way that results in a reduction in the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality. When a symbol use works for the acceptance of change it will increase the capacity of the symbol user to mirror reality.”
www.bonusjoules.co.nz
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 20, 2008 2:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We say "pump", they say "how much?"
And we pay a hefty price for that loyalty. What do you think Iraq was about? And 9/11? (This is an example of how denying 9/11 truth causes huge gaps in reasoning to form in someone's arguments. If you cant see the Saudi aspect of the conspiracy, then not much afterwards will make sense.)
The Saudi royal family conspired with Bush/Cheney to create the pretext to invade Iraq. Motive: to inflate the value of Saudi oil. A conspiracy worth trillions of dollars to the Saudis, the Bin Laden Family, the Bush Family, Israel, and the American military industrial complex. There was only one way for all those groups to get rich at the expense of the American AND Saudi AND Israeli middle classes. There was only one way... and they did it.
There is no way some dude in a cave could come up with a plan that could possibly have so thoroughly enriched his own enemies and turned the most free population on earth into a bunch of cattle-like slaves willing to be stampeded into killing for oil and opium. It is so obvious that such a hypothetical man in a cave could not come up with such a plan, nor would he have any motive for doing so.
It is really tough for some to accept this right now, but it will become more and more obvious in the future, when everyone is able to see the seriousness of peak oil.
The 4th estate failed on peak oil, just like it failed on 9/11, and on countless other occasions. And none of it was by accident. Sooner or later you must assume that failure was the plan all along. Who was it that said "Sometimes, success is nothing more than a timely sequence of failures."? Even that sounds like controlled demolition, doesnt it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 20, 2008 4:04 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sad to say, however until a hybrid comes an a 4X4 and can get up a Pennsylvania hill in the middle of winter, call me. Until then, I'll be working on my veggie Diesel conversion.
You can sit and wait for the Daddy Government. I'll place matters into my own hands. Until then how about we pump the oil with in our borders? What a flipping concept? If we treated wheat harvesting like drilling domestically for oil? Can you say "bread lines."
If China or Russia still owned Alaska, they would be clubbing baby seals for the hell of it while drilling for oil! Why should the United States be such pussies!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Let's leave Russia and China out for a moment. But you are correct about government.
Posted by: maxpayne
» You have the tax breaks wrong...
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» No. I stand correct. Why would lawyers and real estate agents need an SUV?
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: No. I stand correct. Why would lawyers and real estate agents need an SUV?
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: No. I stand correct. Why would lawyers and real estate agents need an SUV?
Posted by: maxpayne
» We don't have sufficient domestic oil to meet our needs. The US consists of 20% of global oil demand
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ScottP on May 20, 2008 4:21 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak oil, gasoline prices, and electricity prices are minor issues compared to burning up the planet. The choice is your's: start producing your own power or continue being part of the global warming problem.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Solar power, why wait when you can do it yourself!
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» True. I googled it and found great sources for building solar-powered generators.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: True. I googled it and found great sources for building solar-powered generators.
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» RE: True. I googled it and found great sources for building solar-powered generators.
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on May 20, 2008 6:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So the global economy can run on hemp "100%"? Put the blunt down buddy
Posted by: blogbooks
» Yes, it can. I see you can't handle the truth.
Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: So the global economy can run on hemp "100%"? Put the blunt down buddy
Posted by: Libsrule
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 20, 2008 10:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are not drilling for oil or for gas there. It is known to be there. Why would they not do that? Its easy. If they were to over produce, the price would drop.
Lets go one step further. If the oil companies were to put their product out on the world market it would sell at 'market prices'. They do this every day. What if they were to take some of their own profits and use them to bid up the price of oil in the world markets, would the Securities and Exchange Commission be able to catch them? The simple answer is that the SEC only operates inside of the United States. They couldn't even be caught.
Are the big oil companies doing this? This question you will answer for yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on May 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The oil industry knows and accepts that global warming is real. The real reason they don't mind doing anything to us is because they know that they are dead. They no longer care what they do to you or to me or to the United States. The rape of the carbon cycle must come to and end.
THE OIL IS GOING TO REMAIN IN THE GROUND. Global warming is not going to allow that it be produced.
Oh, Yes, there no shortage and peak production may or may not be a myth. It certainly is an interesting cover story for big oil. Now let me go back and rephrase. All of the cheap oil, read easy to get to, has been produced. It is true. Cheap oil has peaked. Oil still costs less than 20 dollars a barrel to produce.
Notice that when passenger trains became unprofitable the were given to AMTRAK. It maybe that the taxpayer will be given the "opportunity" to purchase the oil companies. The real catch is that we need something done NOW.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on May 21, 2008 12:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ghoster on May 21, 2008 7:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on May 30, 2008 12:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How long could that be? A long, long time.
High fuel prices means that coal can be processed into liquid fuels. The process dates back to Nazi Germany; trial plants have been tried in the US and failed only because the price of petroleum was too low.
There is a heck of a lot of coal in the ground. Centuries' worth.
High fuel prices means that extraction of methane hydrate deposits may become economically feasible in the near future. Methane hydrates constitute a reserve far vaster than petroleum deposits. Though for how long they will be extractable is anyone's guess. As the Earth warms, these shallow, unstable deposits may become liberated into the atmosphere, thereby accelerating global warming to a much faster pace.
Then there's biofuels. There's just about no limit to what we could make from plants. If you're thinking, wait a minute, there isn't enough farmland to produce enough biofuels to replace petroleum, you're mostly right - but new technologies are being developed (such as algal biofuels) which take up much less land than corn or switchgrass-based biofuel production. We could even use the oceans to farm biofuels.
The price of these fuels will be high. But the growing scarcity of petroleum, coupled with rising demand (especially in China and India) is taking care of that economic variable. The simple truth is that we could keep putting gas in our vehicles for a long, long time - and will, if we let the "invisible hand" of the marketplace guide our future.
So long as we keep burning fuels to power our energy needs, atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise. Corporatists aren't much worried about that; they're after profit.
To stop global warming, the logical thing to do is to halt coal gassification, biofuels, and methane hydrate extraction, and instead incentivize truely CO2-neutral energy sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, and ocean kinetic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
My Experience with a Psychedelic Plant That Thousands Have Used for Release from Severe Addictions
Is Using a Checklist the Answer to All Your Problems?
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism




