Some psychologists perhaps may classify this as being in the "negotiation phase", but could it be that Peak Oil on a global scale may work out differently (read: less dramatically)?

The way I'd figured it, if we're already at plateau for a few years, we're doing reasonably ok given that oil demand should still be rising. So it may be possible that the largeness of scale may dampen the effects of Peak Oil because of, say, a large flexibility in oil demand and/or inefficiencies in oil exploration and exploitation being (slowly) ironed out as the situation demands it.

Is this misplaced optimism or am I on to something?

That might be true, but I doubt it.

I dunno but people here localy are thinking I've really lost my mind over this.......

me too, you look at facts think to yourself things are going to be real bad then you tell someone and they think your a nutter, where's the problem and its hard to see one right now looking around

Personally, I plan to watch how things play out in New Zealand - industrialized society with almost total dependance on imported oil. It is little wonder that the " Running on Empty " site was started there.

I think we are going to have multiple plateaus as prices for oil rise alternatives come on line. Heavy oil, tar sands, coal can be processed for use at a given price (economically and ecologically). Then you have depolymerisation, ethanol, wind, solar thermal, nuclear...what ever works. Down the road hydrogen can be produced using solar cells as mobile fuel. Hopefully we can find a lower level of energy use that is sustainable without a chaotic crash. There is the rub though. The question is the speed of decline.

New Zealand is the place to watch, but I suggest that you keep an eye on the natural gas situation there, which is extremely tight.

Given the fluidity of the world trade in oil, it is likely that NZ would merely face financial hardship as oil price rises (i.e., same effects as other oil dependant 1st world...).

On the other hand, world trade in natural gas is really quite immature, and N.Z. is possibly only a few years from LARGE IRREVERSIBLE gas shortage. That will be HUGE. Watch this space...

Of course, put the two together and

For details, see Page 69 of Jean Laherrere's "Future of Natural Gas Supply", available from this site:

http://peakoil.net/JL/JeanL.html

Hi Notacorncopian

I'm a kiwi living in Wellington NZ and as you rightly point out we are largely dependent on oil imports for transport fuel.

On the other hand we are self sufficient when it comes to electricity. We are currently around 60+% hydro based. The rest is mostly natural gas and some coal (which we do have a lot of). Natural gas is in decline but more importantly we are a very windy country and we have a large potential biofuel resource (over a 1 million hectares of plantation forest). We currently support a large aluminum smelter that takes all the production of our largest and most reliable hydro station. If that left for post peak economy reasons we would have access to that power.

Our greatest challenge moving away from a car dependent society to a high efficiency transport system.

A large proportion of our agricultural land is orientated to export production. In a post peak economy it is unlikely the demand for these exports will remain and a proportion of that land could be used for biofuel production. This would not be enough to meet curernt demand or expectations but should be sufficent to maintain essential freight and mass transit.

We would suffer at first because our economy is based upon being open and export and tourism focused, but if we box clever I think we have the basic resources to make the transition to a different but possibly even better(?) future.

kind regards Doug Clover
Wellington, NZ

Sometimes, when I tell people about peak oil, they ask me what they should invest in.

I do find that kind of sick.

"I just told you the possible consequences are that lots of people might die horrific deaths!"

"I heard you the first time - what stock to I buy?"

Were I to continue with sick humour, I think I could confidently answer - "Go short 'New Zealand energy use per capita'."

60% Hydro based? That's impressive. I did not know that. I think I'll need to take my last comment back.

I agree. I will not buy oil or coal stock and certainly not military industry stock regardless of its possible affect on my portfolio. After all how much of a difference is that portfolio really gonna make in the long run?

Soft_Landing wrote:


on the other hand. If everyone starts buying oil futures the oil price will rise. At $50 oil people start finally thinking seriously about energy conservation, so you might do the planet a favour.

Hello Rincewind,

Was there not some sizeable blockade recently regarding a large hydroelectric project ? Am I dreaming or did the project get shelved ? Or am I thinking NG ?

Hi Back at you notacorncopian

No you are right sort of. The Aqua project was intended to divert around 3/4 of the water flow of a major South Island river into a parallel canal with 6 90MW stations along its length. There were a number of controversial issues:

1 The ecological impacts of diverting that much water out of a braided river system. These would have been significant. Not to mention the best Salmon fishing in NZ

2 Competition for water. Agricultural production is booming in NZ and farmers wanted some of that water for irrigation (The power company basically said it had to be all of the 3/4 of the flow or nothing).

3 The financial risks associated with the project. The proposed budget had already grown from NZ$1.2 billion to NZ $1.8 billion. Then they had a geological report indicating that soil intended to be used for lining the canal was not suitable and they would have to transport in millions of tonnes of the stuff from somewhere else. This would have signficantly raised the cost.

4 The project was located a long way from the main load centres and the tranmission grid would need significant strengthening. This cost was not factored into the project

Around the time the company backed away from the project a commission had been set up to review the water allocation issues but did not get a chance to get started.

I would like to point out that had the project gone ahead (very uncertain) it would have provided 550 MW of capacity in seven years time. Over the last year around 500 MW of wind projects have been proposed and are at various stages of development. Of that amount over 100 MW will be on line by the end of the year. A hell of a lot quicker than any hydro scheme and largely accepted by the public.

Cheers Doug Clover

Thanks for the reply Doug,

Maybe you could give us an idea of how prevalent the concept of oil depletion is among the general populace. I would think that if the general public is aware of the dependancy on imports, and the need to go to alternatives such as wind, NZ may end up writing the blueprint for transition ( not to dismiss places like Denmark, which are moving admirably towards wind ).