harrisonlw wrote:Despite the thread being derailed slightly as people resort to ad hominem responses, I largely appreciate the replies. Peak for me does not mean scarcity or depletion. It means what it means to most other thinking members of this forum.
Basically, my view (and perhaps the accepted wisdom) is that:
1. Conventional oil has peaked
2. Unconventional oil is bridging the gap in demand
3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand
4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil
5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development
6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.
Point 6 is easily the most contentious, and perhaps too cornucopian for this forum. I note that this ignores coal and gas but this is an oil forum after all. In any case, peak oil's ramifications of collapse and wars and famine are dead to me because this issue will play out over decades and we will slowly adapt.
Perhaps this is too optimistic or wilfully ignorant...
Have you considered the possibility that it could be both?
Well, you'll have to work that bit out for yourself. In the meantime, as to your numbered contentions, above, here is how your so called "accepted wisdom" actually stacks up against reality:
1. True
2. Only temporarily true
3. False because this would require much higher oil prices (see #4)
4. False because oil use can no longer provide sufficient energy to the economy to support high oil prices (see Etp)
5. Impossible since the economy is about to collapse, and it would make no difference anyway
6. Impossible since unconventional oil is ALREADY prohibitively expensive, and renewable energy never really had the potential to replace oil in the first place