[pkofsocal]

>Canada and Australia are the big players here, I don't see these countries being involved in any major wars !

Boom. Canada is just next door to the United States, which is increasingly showing that it does covet the resources up north.

Australia? Going halfway around the world with increasingly unstable sea contidions? You would probably need navies to escort that uranium from OZ.

Well, back to square one.

>Even ASPO admit that heavy oil production will increase over the next 5 decades and this area is the only one they do not give a peak date because of the vastness of the reserves. They also do not assume any great efforts to increase production given that the major players are in denial about the peak of conventional oil

Again no matter how vast the reserves might be, the law of diminishing returns apply.

>You are correct, this is a bottleneck. But then this is what Navy's are for.(if there is oil to move there will be oil for the means to ensure supply). Also I have read plans for pipelines via Turkey.

Very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Do we HAVE that pipeline? NO.

A navy is pretty expensive, in energy terms. You will probably have to go around the Cape of Good Hope, which would get progressively harder as ships run out and are attacked more.

>Mining equipment can electrified, indeed a lot of mining equipment is electric, cheap oil has just meant that diesal is cheaper in the use of some equipment. Granted costs will go up, but there is no reason to suspect coal is finished without oil.

And there is no reason to suspect that coal isn't finished without oil either.

>Oil and gas = pipelines. Western Europe is already linked to Russia via pipeline,

Read: Western Europe is dependent upon Russia for oil and would have to do the bear dance if Russia feels like it or the pipes are turned off.

> and northern european pipeline is being built to connect the Netherlands and the UK(gas) for example.

That's nice. But UK's gas will last Europe only by so much.

>Also in countries which have coal can have potential for clean CBM gas:

Potentials. Actually, when things begin to get deseparate, they won't care it's 'clean' or 'dirty'. The important thing is that 'potential' is not realized now, and won't be during the timeframe it may matter.

>I think there are too many variables to say with any certainty that there will be a anarchic situation like you describe all over the world.

Some locales will last longer than others. But practically every place on earth will be affected by PO sooner or later. Eventually all of them will succumb to the enormous wave PO will create.

Oil has too much influence on world's financial and defence systems that no matter what people may do to find alternatives, they won't escape the consequences.

[Permanently_Baffled]

Let me get this straight , I am not saying Europe will not be effected. I just disagree with you on the likely outcome of PO for certain areas of the world.

Boom. Canada is just next door to the United States, which is increasingly showing that it does covet the resources up north.

Australia? Going halfway around the world with increasingly unstable sea contidions? You would probably need navies to escort that uranium from OZ.

Canada's uranium reserves are vast. The US will not invade canada for its Uranium or its tar sands. The former is available in vast quantities so there is no need to invade, the latter will be of no use under military occupation. Remember if the US invades a country to secure oil just for US consumption the likely reaction from the rest of the world would mean that the US would have to invade enough countries to supply all of her requirements. By that I mean no country will trade openely with the US if they are going around invading countries for resources(remember Iraq was a war to keep oil available to the world market not just the US)

Again no matter how vast the reserves might be, the law of diminishing returns apply

Incorrect, the processes for developing heavy oil are in there infancy given there has never been any need for it in the past. The reserves of this oil dwarf conventional oil (500 billion in SA, Billions in Kuwait, 300 billion in Venezuela etc etc). Heavy oil will never be produced in the quantities like conventional oil but will make a contribution. The energy profit is likely to improve with time not get worse.

Very vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Do we HAVE that pipeline? NO

True. That is why you need a balance between shipped and piped resources. Turkey is pushing for EC membership and also relies on oil from the ME so it will be in her interest to protect this asset. There are further pipelines planned which will be complete by the end of the decade.

A navy is pretty expensive, in energy terms. You will probably have to go around the Cape of Good Hope, which would get progressively harder as ships run out and are attacked more.

Attacked by who exactly? Pirates ? Seriously , the only significant Navys are the US , Russia and China. Russia won't give a stuff unless there interests are threatned, but they are already energy rich so they will not sinking energy cargo. The Chinese main supply of oil is IRan and Russia, the latter is supplied mainly by pipeline and train. The former is shipped, but doesn't go anywhere near the suez canal. The chinese would have no interest in attacking cargo going via suez or the cape of good hope.

And there is no reason to suspect that coal isn't finished without oil either.

Nothing in mining that cannot be electrified. And mining was around way before diesal. Plus fuel can be made from coal to run drills , trucks or whatever you contest.

Read: Western Europe is dependent upon Russia for oil and would have to do the bear dance if Russia feels like it or the pipes are turned off.

This is only likely to happen when production nears domestic consumption. Of course the amount received in Europe from Russia will demise over time, but remember if the large net food exporters(EC,US,CANADA) have no oil or collapse then Russia/China/India starves....

That's nice. But UK's gas will last Europe only by so much

No I was referring to Russian gas which represents 25% of the worlds total reserve and 1,600 trillion cubic feet(R/P of 90 years and this figure could be understated). Although you are right, both Norway and the Netherlands have gas reserves with R/P ratios of 40 years.

Listen, I respect your views, but we will never agree. You could very well be right I just don't think you will be.

I will say one thing though, if you are right we are both dead. If I am right I can mock you and say "I told you so". Mind you there will be no interent so I don't know how I will get the message to you.

PB

[pkofsocal]

>Canada's uranium reserves are vast. The US will not invade canada for its Uranium or its tar sands

Apparently the wiseguys in canada DON'T THINK SO.

---

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.

===

The Canadian think-tanks know more about Canada than you. Well, back to square one, isn't it?

---
>Incorrect, the processes for developing heavy oil are in there infancy given there has never been any need for it in the past. The reserves of this oil dwarf conventional oil (500 billion in SA, Billions in Kuwait, 300 billion in Venezuela etc etc).

---

All very near to unstable and remote regions needing quite a few barrels to pull it off, isn't it?

SA is a power keg with an unstable and increasingly socialistic goverment, full with ethnic strifes and no clear majority to 'lead' the nation.

I don't think you don't know what happened in Zimbabwe.

>This is only likely to happen when production nears domestic consumption. Of course the amount received in Europe from Russia will demise over time, but remember if the large net food exporters(EC,US,CANADA) have no oil or collapse then Russia/China/India starves....

EC etc have to take care of their own first. And net exports are already gobbled up by China so fast that there are no 'slack' anyways.

>Listen, I respect your views, but we will never agree. You could very well be right I just don't think you will be.

That's because I am taking the entire world on my view while all you can see is Europe.

>I will say one thing though, if you are right we are both dead. If I am right I can mock you and say "I told you so". Mind you there will be no interent so I don't know how I will get the message to you.

By your definition if all of your preditions come true there would still be some internet.

Internets were designed to withstand nuclear attacks. The very fact that there is no internet means the world's communication system has been broken beyond salvage.

[TWilliam]

is what I refer to as Leverage.

But first off greets to the Peak Oil Forum members & readership. GREAT forum!

Anybody remember the teeter-totter (at least that's what we call it in US)? Flat board on a fulcrum ? You sit on one end, friend at the other? Remember what you had to do to make it balance if one of you weighed more? That's right: move the fulcrum towards the heavier person. That's using Leverage, less energy (the lighter child) to move greater mass.

Building a technological society is, at it's most basic, an exercise in the moving of mass. "Dig it out/produce it over there, put it/use it over here".

To move mass, one requires energy.

The rise of our modern technological society began with coal. Prior to coal our primary energy source was wood, and one could say that our level of technological development was limited by the balance between the energy we could extract from the wood versus how much effort it's procurement required (cost). Coal shifted that balance by providing more energy out for an equivalent effort (lower cost). Oil multiplied that shift even more.

Result? LOTS of Leverage (fulcrum WAY over toward the fat kid), industrial boom (lots of mass getting moved at low cost).

As coal, oil, gas, etc. (ANY finite natural resource) become increasingly difficult to acquire (which they inexorably do), the Leverage that resource provides diminishes, the fulcrum shifts back the other way (cost goes up), which means it requires more energy to support what is now a very large mass (a third friend has been stuffing your other friend's pockets with rocks; not only that, the sand you secretly filled your pockets with is running out through holes).

As the fulcrum continues to shift, there will inevitably come a point at which your friend will sink to the ground because Leverage is no longer present. How quickly and at what point that descent occurs (as anyone whose ever balanced like this on a moveable fulcrum knows) depends on what? That's right: how quickly the fulcrum shifts (how quickly the cost of obtaining the energy rises). What IS unavoidable is that the mass WILL come down.

Now here's the thing that I believe gets missed: NOTHING ELSE provides the degree of LEVERAGE that oil INITIALLY provided to raise the mass of technologial society, and nothing currently known (even combined) can maintain the PRESENT degree of Leverage, which means that like it or not, society IS going to come down.

The only issues are how far and how fast, and those depend on a) how rapidly the net available energy declines, and b) what rate of expansion we attempt to maintain [ which of course impacts a) ] .

As far as any techno-messiah goes, ANY addition of technology ultimately represents an increase in mass which requires an increased energy input to maintain. If it requires any form of finite resource to produce or maintain, it will inevitably lead to an acceleration of the very problem it seeks to resolve, even if it appears at first to ameliorate it...

..

[Permanently_Baffled]

Apparently the wiseguys in canada DON'T THINK SO.

Even if your ludicrous prediction comes true (which it will not for the reasons stated in my previous post , no one will trade with the US if they invade canada -- bang there goes all there oil imports) then there are the following other countries uranium can be sourced from:

Country t U
Kazakhstan 957.000
Australia 910.000
Soth Africa 369.000
USA 355.000
Canada 332.000
Brazil 309.000
Namibia 287.000
World Total 4.416.000

You might also notice that USA has significant reserves (greater than canada in fact!) so why bother with Canada???

All very near to unstable and remote regions needing quite a few barrels to pull it off, isn't it?

Developing heavy oil reserves(as with conventional oil) is allowed for in the energy profit. Heavy oil is still positive.....

EC etc have to take care of their own first. And net exports are already gobbled up by China so fast that there are no 'slack' anyways.

What on earth are you talking about? Russias net exports go onto the world markets like any other comomdity. Goes to highest bidder. Some will go to China, some will go to the EC.

That's because I am taking the entire world on my view while all you can see is Europe.

I offer a olive branch and try to debate nicely and this is the response. Firstly, stop being an arrogant prick and secondly I have addressed every single point you have made whether it was global or just the EC. If you go back to my original post I am only using the EC as an example, I think other areas of the world will not see chaos as you describe(Canada for example)

By your definition if all of your preditions come true there would still be some internet.

Nah there wont, electricity will need to be conserved mega style for essential purposes.

Internets were designed to withstand nuclear attacks. The very fact that there is no internet means the world's communication system has been broken beyond salvage.

Yes but what about all those power hungry PC's and servers and replacement parts which are luxuries not essentials.

I really do think we have gone as far as possible with this now. We really are not going to agree. We both see PO as happening , but we see the outcome as different. You see exctinction I see a slow die off over decades.

Lets leave it at that !

PB

[Permanently_Baffled]

The only issues are how far and how fast, and those depend on a) how rapidly the net available energy declines, and b) what rate of expansion we attempt to maintain [ which of course impacts a) ] .

..

I agree with you. What me and the thread author cannot agree on is the speed and severity of the population reduction post peak.

Anyway welcome and enjoy!!

PB

[TWilliam]

Anyway welcome and enjoy!!

PB

Thanks PB.

What me and the thread author cannot agree on is the speed and severity of the population reduction post peak.

Your conversation I guess drew my attention because it reflects to some degree my own inner debate regarding PO.

Considering that studies in population dynamics have revealed a consistent pattern amongst all species when given virtually unrestricted access to a basic resource, namely that they subsequently overshoot their resource base (overshoot being defined as the point at which half of said resource has been depleted, also known as peak), experience at that point a doubling (at least) of population followed closely (i.e. within the lifecycle of the latest generation) by a precipitous drop in total population of around 90% (and in some cases complete extinction); I see no reason to expect that we shall escape a similar degree of decline (human arrogance regarding mathematical law notwithstanding).

Now, as to how QUICKLY that occurs. Again, I see no reason to expect that we can escape the mathematics involved. Within the lifecycle of whatever generation is born at the time peak occurs is the reasonably expectable timeframe within which we can expect a collapse to complete itself.

The only thing "alternatives" do is perhaps move the energy peak into the future a bit, allowing a larger "last generation" to develop, which leads to that much more momentum when the inevitable collapse occurs. This in turn increases the likelyhood of complete extinction.

So I suppose how urgent one perceives the issue to be hinges primarily upon one's age. If one expects to be leaving the planet iwithin the next decade or so, then one will likely not be overly concerned. However, if one has only been around for oh, say 5 to 20 years or so, then I'd be inclined to say "sucks to be you", as I suspect that your not too distant future is going to look substantially less rosey than your life so far.

That's the conclusion I'm increasingly coming to anyway...

..

[pkofsocal]

Your points are well taken.

My guess is, the entire scenario will unfold much faster than anybody might imagine at this point.

Not overnight or a few days, but at most a few years.

It is said that "it took 300 years to establish the Russian Empire, and three days to break it."

When the first Incan sentries at what is now Ecuador saw a few Spanish ships containing a few hundred dirty white sailors, nobody would have imagined that the Incan Empire would be finished within a few weeks.

But, both empires fell so quickly because the seeds of destructions were already sown a long time ago.

Modern system has reached a complexity ordinary humans can't understand any more. It's where the fall begins.

[Permanently_Baffled]

I can understand your conclusions Twilliams but what is interesting in the human situation is that the population growth seems to mostly be happening in countries who have the least or no access to the basic resource(in this case fossil fuels).

Also humans (unlike bacteria or animals) use this vital resource(in fact most of it) for total crap that isn't needed for survival. The reason why the bacteria in the petri dish collapses in population after getting 'x' amount through the key resource is because the population gets to a 'x' size where all of the resource is being used for survival(ie consuming said resource whatever it is to stay alive source of nutrients)

Oil = pesticide/herbicide and transport.
Natural gas = Fertilizer.

Current population = 6 billion(ish)

1.6 billion have no access to this key resource(oil/gas/electricity), but exist thrugh subsitance farming and a bit of bio mass(wood).

The other 4.4 billion rely in part or in full on fossil fuels, but the vast majority of the resource is wasted on activities uneccessary for survival. Only a fraction of fossil fuel is used for food production for example.

Do you see where I am coming from?

So wouldn't it make more sense to say that the level of resource would have to drop below a certain level before the population started to collapse unnaturally(ie starve?) This obviously assumes that when the resource becomes scarce it is rationalised for key uses only(big assumption I know!).

What is more of a threat to human numbers is using military force to prop up a artifically high standard of living. By this I mean your average american consumes 27 barrels of oil per year, your average china man consumes 1.7 barrels per year etc etc Neither are starving to death(yet) but one uses a hell of lot more key resource than the other!

So in short , I expect human numbers to come down , but not necessarily in huge spasms as per the bacteria in the petri dish, after all the PO crash isnt going to effect the 1.6 billion subsistence farmers who get f*ck all use from the luxuries of fossil fuels for a start, so already more than 10% have survived assuming everone else dies!

Also more than 10% of the current 6 billion existed before the age of oil so again the 90% figure seems rather 'plucked out of the air' to me.

PB

[pkofsocal]

>no one will trade with the US if they invade canada -- bang there goes all there oil imports)

Well, your naivete really shows here. During the world war 2, Germany traded with other nations through 'neutral' Sweden.

And during the Iraq sanctions, Iraq traded its oil with a lot of other nations (including US).

The similarity with Napoleonic wars disappear instantly, because US does have the biggest navy.

>Even if your ludicrous prediction comes true

Apparently you never bothered to check the link I provided.

>Firstly, stop being an arrogant prick and secondly I have addressed every single point you have made whether it was global or just the EC. If you go back to my original post I am only using the EC as an example, I think other areas of the world will not see chaos as you describe(Canada for example)

Canada will be overwhelmed by US. You simply don't know the fear and resentment Canada has against the US, which is compounded by the fact that the Canadians can't really do much against it.

Lots of unstable regions will explode, which will strain the militaries and force to divert 'valuable' resources.

>Nah there wont, electricity will need to be conserved mega style for essential purposes.

It will "Need to be". But that doesn't mean it WILL.

If the bread and circus are taken away, the people will rebel. I do think that the internet will be among the last items to go.

>Yes but what about all those power hungry PC's and servers and replacement parts which are luxuries not essentials.

According to your logic, we 'could' power them with 'alternative energy sources', right?

Many of these parts come from Taiwan, which China doesn't hide the intention to 'reunify' it. It takes oil and other resources to build alternative locations to produce them.

>we see the outcome as different. You see exctinction I see a slow die off over decades

I don't see extinction. One out of say, thirty will remain, and try maintain an increasingly regressing civilization.

The survivors will probably live like the inhabitants of Pitcairn. All of its residents are descended from one single sailor of the Bounty; he had killed or drove off the rest of them.

[Permanently_Baffled]

Well, your naivete really shows here. During the world war 2, Germany traded with other nations through 'neutral' Sweden.

Actually it shows yours , if Sweden didnt cooperate they would of just got invaded .....(you really should think through your examples..)

Presumably invading Canada would be post peak? , after the economic collapse?, who is going to want worthless US dollars? Why you think ME and Russia want Euro's?

And during the Iraq sanctions, Iraq traded its oil with a lot of other nations (including US).

Yes but the US wasnt currently occupying an ally for oil.....

Apparently you never bothered to check the link I provided.

Have read about this before, so will this invasion be on top of Mexico , Iraq, Iran , SA, kuwait, Venezula, North Korea?(I can provide links for that if you want!) US hasn't got enough troops, besides the resource infrastructure of those countries will be f*cked in the preceding air campaigns screwing the US energy supply and economy hence even further. The latter will screw the aforementioned trade for oil from other producers...

According to your logic, we 'could' power them with 'alternative energy sources', right?

Try to understand the concept of conservation , you know where you reserve resources for vital usages. I think if people had the choice between the heating and the PC they would go for the former.

I don't see extinction. One out of say, thirty will remain, and try maintain an increasingly regressing civilization.

So thats approx 3.3% , well thats just laughable. There is Already 1.6 billion people on the planet who do not rely on oil in any way shape or form (subsitence farmers in the third world). So why exactly have they died?

I am getting bored now of untangling your weak arguments.

Do not expect a response to your next (lame) post.

Good night

PB

[TWilliam]

Thanks for the feedback...

1.6 billion have no access to this key resource(oil/gas/electricity), but exist thrugh subsitance farming and a bit of bio mass(wood).

Yes, along with a fair bit of subsidy from those that do...

The other 4.4 billion rely in part or in full on fossil fuels, but the vast majority of the resource is wasted on activities uneccessary for survival. Only a fraction of fossil fuel is used for food production for example.

Do you see where I am coming from?

I do yes, and thank you for reminding me of another aspect that's frequently missed.

What we're really talking about is the collapse of those cultures that are highly addicted to oil. If we confine the discussion to only that population, then I think the estimate still stands. I agree that those that are less dependent on oil will likely be less severely impacted than those that are (tho' I doubt they will be completely immune).

I also agree that the biggest threat to our survival is most probably the increasing likelyhood of military actions to secure dwindling supplies.

So wouldn't it make more sense to say that the level of resource would have to drop below a certain level before the population started to collapse unnaturally(ie starve?) This obviously assumes that when the resource becomes scarce it is rationalised for key uses only(big assumption I know!).

That would be the point in my example where your friend is no longer held aloft on the teeter-totter. Remember that the POSITION of the fulcrum in that greatly simplified illustration essentially represents the point at which the sum total of all energetic inputs balances (maintains) the societal mass. Once that point has shifted to where there is a non-reversable and ever-increasing net energy deficit, the only way to restore balance is to continually reduce mass, at least to a point where available energy can again be produced rapidly enough to support whatever mass remains.

Whether or not we conserve what's left for "key uses" is irrelevant to whether or not that point will be reached. It is simply one of the factors relating to how quickly that point is traversed as the fulcrum slides the other way, and thus it impacts only how rapid the descent, but not IF it will occur. The "big assumption", IMO is that we will conserve it for said uses sufficiently to soften the landing to any appreciable degree. Given humanity's past record, I find it highly doubtful...

Also more than 10% of the current 6 billion existed before the age of oil so again the 90% figure seems rather 'plucked out of the air' to me.

I've seen well-reasoned estimates that indicate that a reduction to as little as 1/70th ( ~98.5% drop ) of the current population may be a realistic expectation. I try to remain optimistic, hence I stick with 90% ...

..

[MonteQuest]

The only issues are how far and how fast, and those depend on a) how rapidly the net available energy declines, and b) what rate of expansion we attempt to maintain [ which of course impacts a) ] .

As far as any techno-messiah goes, ANY addition of technology ultimately represents an increase in mass which requires an increased energy input to maintain. If it requires any form of finite resource to produce or maintain, it will inevitably lead to an acceleration of the very problem it seeks to resolve, even if it appears at first to ameliorate it...

..

Rate and magnitude. My mantra since joining this site. TWilliam, welcome to the forum. I feel a kinship to your views so far. I think you might enjoy this thread;

Technology and Peak oil; Cause and Effect.
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1762.html

[MonteQuest]

[quote="TWilliam

Considering that studies in population dynamics have revealed a consistent pattern amongst all species when given virtually unrestricted access to a basic resource, namely that they subsequently overshoot their resource base (overshoot being defined as the point at which half of said resource has been depleted, also known as peak), experience at that point a doubling (at least) of population followed closely (i.e. within the lifecycle of the latest generation) by a precipitous drop in total population of around 90% (and in some cases complete extinction); I see no reason to expect that we shall escape a similar degree of decline (human arrogance regarding mathematical law notwithstanding).

Now, as to how QUICKLY that occurs. Again, I see no reason to expect that we can escape the mathematics involved. Within the lifecycle of whatever generation is born at the time peak occurs is the reasonably expectable timeframe within which we can expect a collapse to complete itself.

The only thing "alternatives" do is perhaps move the energy peak into the future a bit, allowing a larger "last generation" to develop, which leads to that much more momentum when the inevitable collapse occurs. This in turn increases the likelyhood of complete extinction.

I agree totally. Here's another thread you might enjoy:

Liebig's Law; Why there will be a dieoff
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html

[Aaron]

It is worth noting that the vast majority of population & population growth are in places where the economy is very much dependent on oil & other hydrocarbons.

From China to India to Africa... the poorest among these places may not consume any energy directly, but their economies do.

Saying that the poorest among us won't be affected post peak isn't much of a comfort. So you're only immune to peak oil if your life already sucks and you live near death today?

Those are the three biggest population concentrations for sure.

But the most populated city in the world is... <guesses?>

[pkofsocal]

>Actually it shows yours , if Sweden didnt cooperate they would of just got invaded

LOL. It means "Somebody" was willing to trade with Nazi Germany. If Sweden was invaded, fine. There were also Turkey and Spain(which became an intelligence boom area).

I think your mind is still trapped in the Nelson era.

>So thats approx 3.3% , well thats just laughable. There is Already 1.6 billion people on the planet who do not rely on oil in any way shape or form (subsitence farmers in the third world). So why exactly have they died?

Where do they get their seed from?

Where do they get their medicines? Obviously quite a few of them DON'T have any industry to speak of.

It is clear that your understanding of the world's system needs much to be desired.

I think you are watching too much soccer instead of thinking.

Oh, fortunately for you, there would still be soccer after PO since it will be part of 'bread and circus'.

[MonteQuest]

But the most populated city in the world is... <guesses?>

Used to be Seoul, South Korea, now I believe it is a city in China, but not Beijing.

[Aaron]

nope Monte... but good guess

[pkofsocal]

I think Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Istanbul, etc.

It depends upon how we define a "City". We can call the entire Boston-to-Washington area a huge "CITY" as well.

Mexico City used to be the biggest, but I don't know for sure anymore. Sao Paolo might have surpassed it, since Brazil has more population than Mexico.

[MonteQuest]

Shanghai in China with 13.3m residents, or the greater Tokyo area with 33 million.