Peak Oil News and Message Boards

My take on the peak oil perspective.

As a peak oiler I must first BELIEVE. Not in peak oil necessarily, but some combination of misanthropy, malthusian doom, pessimism towards the current system (anyone noticed that most doomers/peak oilers are older?). Once upon a time it could be said that I could believe in the science of peak oil, when Hubbert was offering up global estimates of peak oil at 12 billion barrels a year back in the 90's, when Colin was declaring peak oil in the late 80's, when Jimmy Carters best and brightest convinced him we would run out by the end of the 80's, back then I could logically look at these experts and buy it based on only their expertise.

But once it was revealed they didn't have a clue, as any study of this topic reveals, then all I have left is the emotional, visceral side of me that needs a trigger to satisfy my hatred of people, the current system, or whatever else I am not happy with in this world. Peak oil works because it causes the downfall, in short order, of the things I despise.

Also, this isn't what peak oilers will admit, they won't say any of this. They will mostly point at others who are recycling the same ideas from the last time, because it seems more real if it can be referred back to "science", or geology or something immutable, immutable is good because this MUST be a trigger event in order to give me as a doomer what I want...the end.

I think I must respond here to what Adam has said. It bears repeating as I think it hints at what the purpose of Tanada was in giving us this challenge. It was to discover who of us is truly open minded and not emotionally invested in their argument. I think Adam is in fact by ascribing certain emotional traits to Doomers, revealing his own emotional proclivities in his arguments. Remember, emotional investment can equally be found in doomer and anti-doomer arguments. If we simply debate on a factual and logical basis the merits of our arguments, we have more than enough material to keep us busy and not bored. We do not need to introduce emotional baggage into our arguments. For the record, I can say that I reject the characterization of Adam about doomers with respect to my person.

Because it is so easy to fudge the pure oil play with other fossil fuels that are similar, let alone different grades of oil being in relative supply, I think the first big public panic that most people will 'agree' about will be over something like lithium. When one of the alternatives to oil gives out, fails as a panacea, people still won't panic too much about the supply of oil. There are other things than lithium that could be the catalyst. Copper could run out because of so much of it going into wiring for a more electric world, and not enough recycling. I also think that would just be the first panic amongst many. People like the occasional panic for some reason. They don't tend to look at the possibilities that set them up and head them off before they come, regardless of how painful they are to go through. Still, you know, there's asteroid mining coming. And there is a lot of stuff in space that can substitute for oil. I guess the biggest question to ask is if the advent of artificial intelligence, robots everywhere taking people's jobs, is likely to foster space exploration or kill it because of people not being as relevant to demand as they once were? Mostly, people are very surprising when it comes to getting over humps.

I don't think the matter of a panic over the end of cheap oil is more than loosely related to oil. I think some powerful figure such as Donald Trump could cause an oil panic later today by tweeting the wrong words. It is psychology and mob mentality and the lack of reasoning that will result in a panic, and not at all any shortage of petroleum. Heck, most of us here understand that oil peaked already, and from here on for at least fifty years, oil is still here but in shorter and shorter supply at higher and higher prices.

AdamB wrote:My take on the peak oil perspective.

As a peak oiler I must first BELIEVE. Not in peak oil necessarily, but some combination of misanthropy, malthusian doom, pessimism towards the current system (anyone noticed that most doomers/peak oilers are older?). Once upon a time it could be said that I could believe in the science of peak oil, when Hubbert was offering up global estimates of peak oil at 12 billion barrels a year back in the 90's, when Colin was declaring peak oil in the late 80's, when Jimmy Carters best and brightest convinced him we would run out by the end of the 80's, back then I could logically look at these experts and buy it based on only their expertise.

But once it was revealed they didn't have a clue, as any study of this topic reveals, then all I have left is the emotional, visceral side of me that needs a trigger to satisfy my hatred of people, the current system, or whatever else I am not happy with in this world. Peak oil works because it causes the downfall, in short order, of the things I despise.

Also, this isn't what peak oilers will admit, they won't say any of this. They will mostly point at others who are recycling the same ideas from the last time, because it seems more real if it can be referred back to "science", or geology or something immutable, immutable is good because this MUST be a trigger event in order to give me as a doomer what I want...the end.

You didn't even try to logically defend the other viewpoint. I will apply the same amount of logic in my response that you applied in your post. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

I award MD ten grammar points for the proper use of "an" before a vowel sound.

Cog wrote:I award MD ten grammar points for the proper use of "an" before a vowel sound.

TYVM. When telling someone to "piss off", it's best to use as few words as possible, IMO. They should at least be grammarly correct. ("grammarly"... I like it)

onlooker wrote:I think I must respond here to what Adam has said. It bears repeating as I think it hints at what the purpose of Tanada was in giving us this challenge. It was to discover who of us is truly open minded and not emotionally invested in their argument. I think Adam is in fact by ascribing certain emotional traits to Doomers, revealing his own emotional proclivities in his arguments.

I am ascribing emotional motivations to doomers because otherwise I have no explanation for how people can sidestep the facts of the matter, the sciences involved, and those who didn't do the former and understand the latter. Once it can be demonstrated that folks choose to ignore facts, science, logic and the history of a thing, what is left but the emotional, their belief system?

onlooker wrote: For the record, I can say that I reject the characterization of Adam about doomers with respect to my person.

Then perhaps you can list the top five factual, scientific or logical reasons why peak oil happened a decade ago? And we can examine why those things didn't create the consequences claimed of it, using perhaps the archives of this very website as the reference?

MD wrote:

AdamB wrote:My take on the peak oil perspective.

As a peak oiler I must first BELIEVE. Not in peak oil necessarily, but some combination of misanthropy, malthusian doom, pessimism towards the current system (anyone noticed that most doomers/peak oilers are older?). Once upon a time it could be said that I could believe in the science of peak oil, when Hubbert was offering up global estimates of peak oil at 12 billion barrels a year back in the 90's, when Colin was declaring peak oil in the late 80's, when Jimmy Carters best and brightest convinced him we would run out by the end of the 80's, back then I could logically look at these experts and buy it based on only their expertise.

But once it was revealed they didn't have a clue, as any study of this topic reveals, then all I have left is the emotional, visceral side of me that needs a trigger to satisfy my hatred of people, the current system, or whatever else I am not happy with in this world. Peak oil works because it causes the downfall, in short order, of the things I despise.

Also, this isn't what peak oilers will admit, they won't say any of this. They will mostly point at others who are recycling the same ideas from the last time, because it seems more real if it can be referred back to "science", or geology or something immutable, immutable is good because this MUST be a trigger event in order to give me as a doomer what I want...the end.

You didn't even try to logically defend the other viewpoint. I will apply the same amount of logic in my response that you applied in your post. YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

Logically defend the other viewpoint? You mean, defend the folks who knew peak oil was a crock, said so, and were castigated until....they were proven right? Isn't reality enough logic for the folks running around claiming that peak oil happened....in a world a decade later where no one notices because apparently the consequence of it was glut, ever higher supply, ever new and higher peaks, and a demonstration right here in the US that not only can peak oils be decades apart, but the last people to ask about how they happen are the folks who are seeing them in their hopes, dreams and prayers...for the previously mentioned emotional reasons?

How much drop off after peak are we talking about? I mean, should we expect a drop simply because of reaching peak? I do think that under the old order, when the housing market was roaring, gasoline was about $5 a gallon and fracking was something that people weren't certain the industry would find the financing for (people did cry about bailing out the banks), the world did peak.

Since then, there has been enough demand destruction world-wide and addition of new supply that things are different. The demand destruction was at first obvious, but now shows up as impacting the rate of demand increase over the past. Fracking has come on and made up a gap that people weren't certain it could before the industry proved it. And the industry has been more resilient in the face of lower prices that resulted from its success than most thought as well.

The thing I'm wondering about is how long fracking will last. Already people, especially politicians, are talking about it as if it will maintain domestic supply at this level, or higher, as far into the foreseeable future as most people can see. I'm not sure I buy that. It concerns me that people don't talk about the depletion rates very much when they throw around the new paradigm talk. I do agree it is a new paradigm. I don't agree about the certainty that it will last. I say the certainty not to predict it won't last, but to point out that the future is about probability, and I don't think the probability is as high as we are being led to believe.

I think it's easy to have events unfold, economically or industry related, that could change that. There has been a huge fall in deep water investment that has gone along with this, for instance, that could wind up opening a gap that won't be addressable over just a few short years. If depletion rates, oddly, in fracking are lower than the worst case, such that supply is somewhat maintained, that could lead to a period of trouble. I started out much more doomerish than I am now, but I still cling to a fair amount of that. I realized I was being too emotional. After stripping some of that away I can still see reasons to worry. Now, I actually think that climate change is a bigger worry, as is the economic impact of AI. I've been worried about both of those at least as long as I've been worried about peak oil. Both of those seem as loaded as peak oil was before the down turn. They could go bouncing along as well, or come to a head. They are also dependent upon what happens within a complex dynamic. I'm not as doomerish concerning them as I was before either, because of what has happened regarding peak oil, but I'm still worried.

evilgenius wrote:Copper could run out because of so much of it going into wiring for a more electric world, and not enough recycling.

Do people think such statements through, or look up any meaningful data on them at all, or just spew them on this site because it is fun?

I happen to know a bit about copper because I've invested in it for the longer term as an inflation hedge. (And yeah, we will likely use a LOT to build out the global smart grid, to put LOTS of motors in more fuel efficient cars, to build out the expanding global middle class's lifestyle wants/needs in coming decades).

OK, so just like peak oil has a physical basis (eventually), we could eventually "run out" of copper to mine.

However, how likely is that to be in a meaningful timeframe to anyone posting on this site? I say not very.

There is a LOT of copper. Since the big commidity price surge in 2008, copper (like many commodities) has performed poorly because there is an oversupply/production of it. Copper miners are often struggling economically, kind of like oil producers these days, with cheap oil.

There are substitutes, should it get expensive. Although imperfect, some are abundant. A common example is aluminum. I think enough said there.

If copper gets expensive enough to be annoying or concerning to most people, then we can be sure there will be LOTS of copper recycling. If there is a dearth of that relative to what is used, it's because it's so abundant people don't bother to recycle "enough". (I think this is one of the failures of the hard crash doomer class re their short term predictions -- to see how much useful change in behavior a big shift in economic incentives (for any reason) can spur in people/businesses).

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

evilgenius wrote:Copper could run out because of so much of it going into wiring for a more electric world, and not enough recycling.

Do people think such statements through, or look up any meaningful data on them at all, or just spew them on this site because it is fun?

I happen to know a bit about copper because I've invested in it for the longer term as an inflation hedge. (And yeah, we will likely use a LOT to build out the global smart grid, to put LOTS of motors in more fuel efficient cars, to build out the expanding global middle class's lifestyle wants/needs in coming decades).

OK, so just like peak oil has a physical basis (eventually), we could eventually "run out" of copper to mine.

However, how likely is that to be in a meaningful timeframe to anyone posting on this site? I say not very.

There is a LOT of copper. Since the big commidity price surge in 2008, copper (like many commodities) has performed poorly because there is an oversupply/production of it. Copper miners are often struggling economically, kind of like oil producers these days, with cheap oil.

There are substitutes, should it get expensive. Although imperfect, some are abundant. A common example is aluminum. I think enough said there.

If copper gets expensive enough to be annoying or concerning to most people, then we can be sure there will be LOTS of copper recycling. If there is a dearth of that relative to what is used, it's because it's so abundant people don't bother to recycle "enough". (I think this is one of the failures of the hard crash doomer class re their short term predictions -- to see how much useful change in behavior a big shift in economic incentives (for any reason) can spur in people/businesses).

In this case not simply because it's fun. I was referring to what might cause a panic. I wasn't insinuating anything more than there being reason enough for people to panic. People panic over less. It has to do with how they perceive things. Copper is just an example I came up with because I was remembering a story I read about copper discovery trends a few years ago, where the author also talked about what a problem the world has recycling it. Any real trouble seems pretty far off, but you never know when panic will be based upon real trouble or fear of it. In any case, my point was more about how oil somehow escapes this. I speculated this is because it has so many substitutes that work pretty well.

Panic and its byproducts should be mixed into the doom scenarios. Surprisingly though as per Ibon's emphasis on consequences being a manifestation of change and an igniter for people to change, people changing including via a panicked attitude can be inferred as a positive even optimistic outcome

You never know where panics are going to go. They could be like this one fight somebody once told me about that they saw at a concert. It moved all over the stadium like a living thing, he said. On the other hand there are people who say there is wisdom in consulting crowds. When there is enough fear for people to overlook their self-interest, as opposed to higher level concepts like love doing that, the way that people act toward each other then feeds on its own energy. Odds are the thing that develops won't be sustainable, but there are exceptions.

Tanada wrote:If you think the world is going to be smooth sailing for as far as the eye can see then you must state what the immediate threat to civilization is, and why we will be destroyed by it.

Are you up to the challenge?

Fair enough. There's always the possibility of large and unexpected asteroids that appear without little warning with a bullseye right on earth. Of course that's a small possibility, but there nonetheless. That would wipe out a large chunk of civilization, depending on how large the asteroid is, of course.

How's that for some doom?

There's no "glitch" because the global economy operates through combinations of credit creation and extensive supply chains. That's why several investors of business operations even in Canada and the U.S. are foreigners (and vice versa), and in order for the petrodollar to thrive the global economy has to continue growing. For the rich, which controls much of the economy, this is critical because most of their wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, and the value of that credit can only be maintained by increasing sales of goods and services worldwide. That's why people worldwide are encouraged to study hard and be productive at work. That way, they can earn a lot and afford middle class conveniences, all of which are sold by the same businesses that they work for.

That means increasing use of material resources and energy, and given competition between the rich, the opposite of diminishing returns. Recycling and renewable energy won't cut it, as explained in other threads.

I am a happy doomer

Oil from Conventional resevoirs peaked
we are on the bumpy plateau
nationalism is rife
wars over resources breaking out all over
standards of living being crushed

all tracking along

Folks I mostly read what you guys write now days but let me put my two cents in. I for one think something is certainly going to happen sooner or later. I'd like to just leave it at that.