Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Peak oil?

Unread postby Sys1 » Wed 12 Nov 2014, 17:41:27

Less than two months from 2015, I read that we are now around 90mbpd while I used to read back in 2007 that we reached the "peak" at 85mbpd. USA are exploiting shale oil and seems to recover more or less from 2008 economic crisis with all of those quantitative bernanke easing inflating new economic bubbles... Nevertheless, the global economy is still growing and there seems to be much more fossil fuels than expected. Of course oil will finally decline, but there is such a strong will to pursue growth that as oil will become too difficult to extract, we will slowly shift to unconventional oil like we already do, but also coal and natural gas.
I used to think back in 2005 that peak oil would lead to a crash of global economy before 2010 then to war.
I now think that everything will be "fine" for the rest of my life. The technology improves so fast that I don't see any major problem to pursue this "unsustainable way of life". Cars will be slowly replaced by public transportation, meat will be replaced by vegetal food, optimization in the way we use energy can be greatly improved, population can decrease without necessary recouring to war...
More than everything, intelligence power released with the explosion of internet and machines able to crave informations in terabytes of datas allow mankind to reach a level of knowledge never expected just several decades ago. We can't even imagine what technology or science breakthough will happen in 5 years. Moreover, population perceive their environment in a more global way, meaning that attachment to a nation or a region is not strong enough to encourage people to find war as a solution. Young people hate the idea of war and are eager for more democracy.

Even infinite growth itself is finally not a problem for many reasons. Here are three examples of sustainable infinite growth in a "finite" world :
- Virtual growth : it can be services, knowledge, art, internet, communications, electronic files (meaning books, cinema, music, mails, video games... whatever you can imagine)
- Space exploration : here technology still needs major improvements, but it's possible.
- Ecology, which looks weird at first sight, but this kind of growth improves environment and so has no limit. Examples : producting fake meat with insects or vegetables, biologic agriculture which can produce more and better than the so called "conventional" agriculture

So my advice to people here is : Don't worry too much about peak oil, just enjoy life. Nevertheless, avoid buying gaz guzzling machines and more than all multi decades debts for a house in suburbia, it's probably not a good bet for your future...
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby JohnnyOnTheFarm » Wed 12 Nov 2014, 19:58:50

Sys1 wrote: So my advice to people here is : Don't worry too much about peak oil, just enjoy life. Nevertheless, avoid buying gaz guzzling machines and more than all multi decades debts for a house in suburbia, it's probably not a good bet for your future...


There will always be bogeymen. Peak oil, pollution blotting out the sun, climate change, Planet X, Carrington events, gamma bursts, pole reversals, swine flu, ebola, GMOs, I mean really.

But your advice seems to cover the basics, and does lead to the next question....if we take your advice, what are ANY of us doing....here?
JohnnyOnTheFarm
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:04:25

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 12 Nov 2014, 22:49:42

The global economy did crash in 2008, and the aftershocks are still being felt today. This is also the possible reason why oil prices did not rise some more, as an already-weak economy cannot afford them. The bad news is that oil prices have to increase further, and many aspects of manufacturing and even food production are heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

In addition, the same economy needs increasing energy quality and quantity because it is capitalist, especially for a middle class that can only maintain conveniences by earning more or receiving higher returns on investment through greater sales of goods and services to a growing market. Also, governments want the same in order to maintain operations, military forces to spend more, etc.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby JohnnyOnTheFarm » Wed 12 Nov 2014, 23:51:30

ralfy wrote:The global economy did crash in 2008, and the aftershocks are still being felt today.


The same could be said of the Great Depression, depending on how you want to count your aftershocks. Lots of things BETTER than what was going on in 2008 have also happened, crude being about half the price being just one of them,

ralfy wrote: This is also the possible reason why oil prices did not rise some more, as an already-weak economy cannot afford them.


Except for all the truck sales still going on in America, home of the gas guzzling Americans, maybe. And "weak" in this case is actually a non recessionary period with plenty of non-weak things happening.

ralfy wrote:The bad news is that oil prices have to increase further, and many aspects of manufacturing and even food production are heavily dependent on fossil fuels.


And the good news is that now that it has been demonstrated that the world can handle $150/bbl oil without a dieoff, the amount of things we can make gasoline from is far higher than previous estimates, and therefore dependency isn't that big of a deal for our lifetime anyway. Plus the economic benefit of providing more and more of our own energy is quite substantial.

ralfy wrote:In addition, the same economy needs increasing energy quality and quantity because it is capitalist, especially for a middle class that can only maintain conveniences by earning more or receiving higher returns on investment through greater sales of goods and services to a growing market. Also, governments want the same in order to maintain operations, military forces to spend more, etc.


Capitalism SUCKS!!! The real problem being....everything else sucks even WORSE. So you stick with what made you the most powerful country in the history of the human species I imagine.
JohnnyOnTheFarm
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:04:25

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby westexas » Thu 13 Nov 2014, 07:05:03

Peak (Crude) Oil in 2005?

In my opinion, actual global crude oil production (45 or lower API gravity crude oil) may have effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids (condensates & natural gas liquids) have so far continued to increase.

I’ve always thought it odd that when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of 45 or lower API gravity crude oil, but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude oil + condensate + NGL (Natural Gas Liquids) + biofuels + refinery gains.

This is analogous to asking a butcher for the price of beef, and he gives you the price of steak, but if you ask him how much beef he has on hand, he gives you total pounds of steak + roast + ground beef. Shouldn’t the price of an item directly relate to the quantity of the item being priced, and not to the quantity of the item plus the quantity of (partial) substitutes?

In any case, the closest measure of global crude oil production that we have is the EIA data base that tracts global Crude + Condensate (C+C). In regard to this data base, a key question is the ratio of global condensate to C+C production. Unfortunately, we don’t appear to have any global data on the Condensate/(C+C) Ratio. Note that when the EIA discusses “crude oil” they are talking about C+C.

Insofar as I know, the only complete Condensate/(C+C) data base, from one agency, is the Texas RRC data base for Texas, which showed that the Texas Condensate/(C+C) ratio increased from 11.1% in 2005 to 15.4% in 2012. The 2013 ratio (more subject to revision than the 2012 data) shows that the 2013 ratio fell slightly, down to about 15%, which probably reflects more focus on the crude oil prone areas in the Eagle Ford. The EIA shows that Texas marketed gas production increased at 5%/year from 2005 to 2012, versus a 13%/year rate of increase in Condensate production. So, Texas condensate production increased 2.6 times faster than Texas marketed gas production increased, from 2005 to 2012.

The EIA shows that global dry gas production increased at 2.8%/year from 2005 to 2012, a 22% increase in seven years. If the increase in global condensate production only matched the increase in global gas production, global condensate production would be up by 22% in seven years. If global condensate production matched the 2005 to 2013 Texas rates of change (relative to the global increase in gas production), global condensate production would be up by about 67% in seven years.

We don’t know by what percentage that global condensate production increased from 2005 to 2013. What we do know is that global C+C production increased at only 0.3%/year from 2005 to 2013. In my opinion, the only reasonable conclusion is that rising condensate production accounted for virtually all of the increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2012, which implies that actual global crude oil production was flat to down from 2005 to 2012, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $55 in 2005 to $112 in 2012.

The following chart shows normalized global gas, NGL and C+C production from 2002 to 2012 (2005 values = 100%).

Image

The following chart shows estimated normalized global condensate and crude oil production from 2002 to 2012 (2005 values = 100%). I’m assuming that the global Condensate/(C+C) Ratio was about 10% for 2002 to 2005 (versus 11% for Texas in 2005), and then I (conservatively) assume that condensate increased at the same rate as global gas production from 2005 to 2012, which is a much lower rate of increase in condensate (relative to the increase in gas production) than what we saw in Texas from 2005 to 2012.

Image

Based on foregoing assumptions, I estimate that actual annual global crude oil production (45 or lower API gravity crude oil) increased from about 60 mbpd (million barrels per day) in 2002 to about 67 mbpd in 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005. 


At the (estimated) 2002 to 2005 rate of increase in global crude oil production, global crude oil production would have been up to about 90 mbpd in 2013. 
As annual Brent crude oil prices doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to an average of about $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive, I estimate that annual global crude oil production did not materially exceed about 67 mbpd, and probably averaged about 66 mbpd for 2006 to 2013 inclusive.

So Far, Global Net Exports of Oil Peaked in 2005

Because of the way that we define net exports, we have to deal in terms of total petroleum liquids (plus other liquids for the EIA data set).

Some definitions:

Global Net Exports (GNE) = Combined net exports from (2005) Top 33 net oil exporters, total petroleum liquids + other liquids (EIA), which accounted for about 99% of total global net exports of oil in 2005

Available Net Exports (ANE) = GNE less Chindia’s Net Imports (CNI)
CNE = Cumulative Net Exports (for a given time period)
ECI (Export Capacity Index) Ratio = Ratio of production to consumption

GNE/CNI Ratio is analogous to the ECI Ratio

Six Country Case History. The Six Country Case History consists of the major net oil exporters (net exports of 100,000 bpd or more) that hit or approached zero net exports from 1980 to 2010, excluding China. China, like the US, became a net importer prior to a production peak, because of a rapid rate of increase in consumption. Combined production from the Six Countries virtually stopped increasing in 1995, showing only a 2% increase from 1995 to 1999.

The following chart shows the normalized values for production, ECI Ratio, net exports and remaining post-1995 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports) by year (1995 values = 100%).

Image

Note that even as production increased slightly from 1995 to 1999 (by 2%), net exports fell, because of rising consumption, as illustrated by the decline in the ECI Ratio. And note that even as production increased from 1995 to 1999, remaining post-1995 CNE fell by 54%.

Estimated Six Country post-1995 CNE were about 9.0 Gb (billion barrels) based on the 1995 to 2002 rate of decline in their ECI ratio. Actual post-1995 CNE were 7.3 Gb.

The key point is that a declining ECI Ratio corresponded to a rapid rate of depletion in remaining CNE, and even as Six Country production rose from 1995 to 1999, the rate of depletion in remaining post-1995 CNE accelerated, from 15%/year in 1996 to 26%/year in 1999.

Global Net Exports of oil (GNE). GNE, the combined net exports from the top 33 net exporters in 2005, fell from about 46 mbpd (million barrels per day) in 2005 to about 44 mbpd in 2012. Preliminary 2013 data show that GNE in 2013 fell to 43 mbpd. Combined production from the top 33 net exporters in 2005 rose slightly from 2005 to 2013, but because consumption increased faster than production, net exports fell, as evidenced by the decline in the ECI Ratio.

The following chart shows the normalized values for production, ECI Ratio, net exports and estimated remaining post-2005CNE (Cumulative Net Exports) by year (2005 values = 100%).

Image

Based on the 2005 to 2012 rate of decline in the Top 33 ECI Ratio, I estimate that remaining post-2005 Global CNE fell by about 21% by the end of 2012. As noted above, this methodology was too optimistic for the Six Country Case History, in regard to estimating post-1995 CNE.

Available Net Exports of oil (ANE). ANE are defined as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE) less the Chindia region's (China + India’s) net imports (CNI). ANE, the volume of GNE available to importers other than China and India, fell from 41 mbpd in 2005 to 35 mbpd in 2012. Based on the preliminary 2013 data, ANE fell to 34 mbpd in 2013.

The GNE/CNI Ratio is analogous to the ECI Ratio. The following chart shows 2002 to 2012 GNE/CNI data, with the extrapolation based on the 2005 to 2012 rate of decline in the ratio.

Image

At a GNE/CNI Ratio of 1.0, China and India alone would theoretically consume 100% of Global Net Exports of oil, leaving no net oil exports available to about 155 net importing countries. Of course, the global economy can’t survive if only two countries are consuming anywhere close to 100% of Global Net Exports of oil, but that has been direction we have been headed in since 2002, up to and including 2013.

I’ve called what happens from 2012 to 2022, and in following years, to the GNE/CNI Ratio the “$64 Trillion Question.” The conundrum is that we continued to slide, at least through 2013, toward a point in time--a GNE/CNI Ratio of 1.0--that we cannot arrive at.
westexas
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue 04 Jun 2013, 06:59:53

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 02:41:21

JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:
The same could be said of the Great Depression, depending on how you want to count your aftershocks. Lots of things BETTER than what was going on in 2008 have also happened, crude being about half the price being just one of them,


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Also, we're looking at multiple problems, not just financial, which means what we are seeing right now is not the same as the Great Depression.


Except for all the truck sales still going on in America, home of the gas guzzling Americans, maybe. And "weak" in this case is actually a non recessionary period with plenty of non-weak things happening.



Coupled with vehicle miles traveled driven:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/01/31/wh ... e-mileage/

Meanwhile, oil consumption rises worldwide, but much of it likely not for gas guzzling.

And the good news is that now that it has been demonstrated that the world can handle $150/bbl oil without a dieoff, the amount of things we can make gasoline from is far higher than previous estimates, and therefore dependency isn't that big of a deal for our lifetime anyway. Plus the economic benefit of providing more and more of our own energy is quite substantial.


No, it can't, because the global economy remains weak even with up to $100. To "recover," more credit was created, and added to an unregulated derivatives market that has a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. The additional credit was needed to obtain "our energy," which essentially consists of expensive unconventional production, some of which pollutes as much (if not more) and will peak soon.

Capitalism SUCKS!!! The real problem being....everything else sucks even WORSE. So you stick with what made you the most powerful country in the history of the human species I imagine.


It's not so much as capitalism "sucking" as the reality that it ultimately creates the very problems that threatens it. More important is the reality that growth cannot continue in a world with physical limitations.

That's why as more countries "stick with" what makes them "powerful," one should expect the same policies to weaken them.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby JohnnyOnTheFarm » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 08:00:45

ralfy wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Also, we're looking at multiple problems, not just financial, which means what we are seeing right now is not the same as the Great Depression.


True. The world is doing okay right now, doesn't appear to require a world war to shake it off, isn't falling into protectionist or isolationist tendencies, things are pretty BAU.

ralfy wrote:
And the good news is that now that it has been demonstrated that the world can handle $150/bbl oil without a dieoff, the amount of things we can make gasoline from is far higher than previous estimates, and therefore dependency isn't that big of a deal for our lifetime anyway. Plus the economic benefit of providing more and more of our own energy is quite substantial.


No, it can't, because the global economy remains weak even with up to $100.


"Remains weak" means growing rather than contracting, and I wasn't talking about "cheap" oil at $100 that everyone has become comfortable with, but peak price in 2008. Because it was only temporary, it is hard to tell how much effect it would have had, but certainly we have dealt with $100 quite well, and that itself was once considered near impossible, remember back when oil cracked the $40/bbl barrier and everyone was proclaiming the horror, the horror? We can't even pretend it slowed down pickup truck sales much. Not bad for a near 150% increase in the last expectation of what "expensive" oil was.

ralfy wrote:
Capitalism SUCKS!!! The real problem being....everything else sucks even WORSE. So you stick with what made you the most powerful country in the history of the human species I imagine.


It's not so much as capitalism "sucking" as the reality that it ultimately creates the very problems that threatens it. More important is the reality that growth cannot continue in a world with physical limitations.


Depends on what type of "growth" is required, because certainly there is no more requirement to only limit our acquisition of resources to "a" world when our perspective has been growing beyond that as of late.

Just imagine, since peak/plateau oil happened almost a decade ago now, the world has shifted under our feet, and created private companies capable of spoaceflight. If that isn't a bellweather of things to come, I don't know what is.

ralfy wrote:That's why as more countries "stick with" what makes them "powerful," one should expect the same policies to weaken them.


Others can hope I suppose. Fortunately for Americans, it doesn't look likely to happen soon.
JohnnyOnTheFarm
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:04:25

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby dorlomin » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 08:21:45

JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:And the good news is that now that it has been demonstrated that the world can handle $150/bbl oil without a dieoff, the amount of things we can make gasoline from is far higher than previous estimates, and therefore dependency isn't that big of a deal for our lifetime anyway.
Your arguments smell rather familiar.
Your logic is terrible.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby JohnnyOnTheFarm » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 08:30:54

dorlomin wrote:
JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:And the good news is that now that it has been demonstrated that the world can handle $150/bbl oil without a dieoff, the amount of things we can make gasoline from is far higher than previous estimates, and therefore dependency isn't that big of a deal for our lifetime anyway.
Your arguments smell rather familiar.
Your logic is terrible.


What is wrong with the logic? Once upon a time everyone pretty excited about high oil prices...like when it went above $40/bbl. Ultimately it ended up at $150 and that was pretty damn scary, but it settled down around the $100 mark and folks seemed to deal with that pretty well, recessions stopped, car sales returned, the world kept turning. So we know that between $100 and $150/bbl we have a sensitivity that causes people to react by driving less, drives innovation in the form of alternative powered transport, makes economies more dependent on oil for economic activity (like America) weaker but more efficient.

But we also know that these higher prices have driven the development of resources never even imagined by folks, and this has changed the "what is possible" picture in America in a big way. Big new domestic supplies are brought online, enough to flex the geopolitical picture, provide some competition for OPEC on who is creating the marginal barrel, that kind of stuff.

So now, examining what happens if the price were to go back up to that higher level, there isn't near the bad reaction there once was because we know how it can be handled, only this next time...even better. Not everyone is going to rush out and sell their Prius just because prices are going down, those folks will have a big advantage on the next upswing.
JohnnyOnTheFarm
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun 02 Nov 2014, 21:04:25

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby sparky » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 08:49:28

.
@ Westexas ,your post is quite compelling ,
especially the link between increased internal consumption when a country is past peak , Indonesia practically doesn't export anymore but their consumption is still rising ( fast)
In my humble opinion ,the traded , shipped exports is the real number , is it why it is so difficult to get good data ?!
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby dorlomin » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 09:28:38

JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:Ultimately it ended up at $150 and that was pretty damn scary, but it settled down around the $100 mark and folks seemed to deal with that pretty well, recessions stopped, car sales returned, the world kept turning.
Your style is still the same.

Every major branch of economic theory, the Keynsians, the Monetarists, the Supply Siders and the New Classicals would have had the same basic interpretation of simultaneous giant fiscal and monetary stimulus. Yet this did not happen. What the stimulus seems to have done is stave off an underlying deflation and contraction.

But here you are glibly breezing this off. :lol:

We can survive $150 oil ok, just like we can survive not having an income so long as you still have savings. 8)
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 14 Nov 2014, 20:33:09

JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:
True. The world is doing okay right now, doesn't appear to require a world war to shake it off, isn't falling into protectionist or isolationist tendencies, things are pretty BAU.


The world is not "doing okay right now." If more conflict takes place, they will be as a result of multiple problems mentioned in my previous post.


"Remains weak" means growing rather than contracting, and I wasn't talking about "cheap" oil at $100 that everyone has become comfortable with, but peak price in 2008. Because it was only temporary, it is hard to tell how much effect it would have had, but certainly we have dealt with $100 quite well, and that itself was once considered near impossible, remember back when oil cracked the $40/bbl barrier and everyone was proclaiming the horror, the horror? We can't even pretend it slowed down pickup truck sales much. Not bad for a near 150% increase in the last expectation of what "expensive" oil was.



Car sales went up likely because of increased credit available but vehicle miles traveled remained low.

ralfy wrote:
Depends on what type of "growth" is required, because certainly there is no more requirement to only limit our acquisition of resources to "a" world when our perspective has been growing beyond that as of late.

Just imagine, since peak/plateau oil happened almost a decade ago now, the world has shifted under our feet, and created private companies capable of spoaceflight. If that isn't a bellweather of things to come, I don't know what is.



The only type of growth that matters for capitalist systems is increasing production and consumption of goods to keep the value of increasing credit propped up. The "growth" that we are now seeing is driven by bailouts.

There will always be news of space flight, etc., involving a few companies, but for most businesses it will be about dealing with economic crisis brought about by peak oil and other problems.

Others can hope I suppose. Fortunately for Americans, it doesn't look likely to happen soon.


Too late, as the economy crashed years ago, and the only thing that's keeping it afloat is increasing debt and part-time jobs.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ennui2 » Sat 15 Nov 2014, 18:34:09

JohnnyOnTheFarm wrote:
Sys1 wrote: So my advice to people here is : Don't worry too much about peak oil, just enjoy life. Nevertheless, avoid buying gaz guzzling machines and more than all multi decades debts for a house in suburbia, it's probably not a good bet for your future...


There will always be bogeymen. Peak oil, pollution blotting out the sun, climate change, Planet X, Carrington events, gamma bursts, pole reversals, swine flu, ebola, GMOs, I mean really.

But your advice seems to cover the basics, and does lead to the next question....if we take your advice, what are ANY of us doing....here?


Most of what people are doing here is looking for attention. That's why a lot of the threads here have nothing to do with peak oil and more to do with your above list of side-issues.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ennui2 » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 11:44:29

ralfy wrote:Too late, as the economy crashed years ago, and the only thing that's keeping it afloat is increasing debt and part-time jobs.


There's always a way to say things suck. Weren't there still wars and poor people during the oil glut of the late 90s? Wasn't there a wide gap between rich and poor in the 1930s? Currency collapses in Argentinia decades ago? The problem is people here are still drawing a causal relationship between overall quality of life and "peak oil". Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside of this tiny little leftover echo-chamber, buys that logic.

The lights are still on. The stores are still fully stocked. Technology continues to march on. You can still get your big macs and starbucks. This is BAU, not doom. That it's not a utopia doesn't mean we're living in doom.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Peak oil?

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 16 Nov 2014, 21:57:17

ennui2 wrote:
There's always a way to say things suck. Weren't there still wars and poor people during the oil glut of the late 90s? Wasn't there a wide gap between rich and poor in the 1930s? Currency collapses in Argentinia decades ago? The problem is people here are still drawing a causal relationship between overall quality of life and "peak oil". Nobody, and I mean nobody, outside of this tiny little leftover echo-chamber, buys that logic.

The lights are still on. The stores are still fully stocked. Technology continues to march on. You can still get your big macs and starbucks. This is BAU, not doom. That it's not a utopia doesn't mean we're living in doom.


The effects of peak oil include more conflict.

There was such a gap during the 1930s but the effects of peak oil, global warming, a far larger population, more armaments, greater resource demand, etc., were not yet prominent.

The quality of life based on basic needs and peak oil, especially given increased population, environmental damage, global warming, etc., is painfully obvious. Most do not support this argument because they believe that some form of technology, government, business, etc., will save everyone.

The benefits that one sees is lacking for most people worldwide who earn only a few dollars a day. In addition, middle class conveniences are sustained in the long run only if most people worldwide start earning more, and that in turn requires more oil, etc.

Finally, it's probably not an either-or situation, i.e., either there is utopia or doom.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland


Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests