[timmac]

Yep we have over a 100 years left of oil folks, Doom over sorry to ruin your party..

Probably in excess of 50 years before oil production drops below half what is currently. Counting natural gas in total hydrocarbons, probably 90 to 140 years before total hydrocarbon use drops to below half what it is currently. It is likely that this will be enough time to transition to renewables, nuclear, and biomass, with some oil still used for long distance transportation.

And now there isn’t as much DOOM. Peak oil pundits appear to have reached peak doom and are now running out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/07/09/how-many-years-of-oil-do-we-have-left-to-run-our-industrial-civilization-keeping-in-mind-that-oil-is-a-resource-and-has-an-economical-end/

Happy Days are Back...

[Paulo1]

re statement: "Happy Days are Back... "

Unfortunately, so are you.

[AgentR11]

I think most of the "we're gonna run out soon" crowd left long ago, I think they're obsessing over immigration and FEMA camps right now, you might want to go look for them somewhere else.

Meanwhile.... Yep, we have decades of oil left.... decades of very, very expensive oil; oil that is too pricy to support an emratio of 63-65%, but is still a very good deal for economically productive uses, consequently we seem to be able to hold onto a 58-59% emratio at the current price. We had even less in the 50's to 70's as we hadn't fully opted in all interested female workers, and overall the economy still did the job of making sure most everyone had food and a place to not get rained on.

The question going forward is what will be the price of that barrel of oil, and how will any demand destruction work to limit price and further reduce the percentage of people with reasonably productive jobs.

[dashster]

I would bet that most people predicting an emminent peak in oil production would prefer to be wrong about it. That is, they wouldn't consider 100 years of oil a problem. Even if they are old and not expecting to live much longer, most would have kids and grandchildren who will be alive through any decline they are forecasting.

Although those predicting no problems with oil production in the future may be injecting their hope and desire that it does go up into their calculations, those predicting problems are not injecting a hope and desire that it goes down.

I don't think that Forbes is a good place to get reliable estimates on future fossil fuel production. And in this case, it is not a Forbes writer, but a Quora post that Forbes has chosen to feature on their site. This author is answering a question on future oil production, but in order to boost the optimism in his post he changes it to "Peak Oil (and hydrocarbons)" so he can talk about wind and solar production increasing.

[Peak_Yeast]

"Oil falling to half the production level in 50 years."

That means we have a big problem long before 50 years.

1. an impoverished ecology where we just cant go out and get "free food".
2. population is still growing.
3. declining eroei
4. declining production level
5. increasing pollution
6. water scarcity
7. resource scarcity

So this is a version of the Export Land model where "exports" are being eaten into not by two factors, but 7 or more factors. IOW: It can go very fast very suddenly.

[kublikhan]

I think most of the "we're gonna run out soon" crowd left long ago, I think they're obsessing over immigration and FEMA camps right now, you might want to go look for them somewhere else.

+1

Timmac, looks like you were gone for awhile. You should know most of the ultra doomer crowd left. This place has mellowed out since the last time you were here. This is not the best place to troll for doomers anymore. Perhaps try another forum?

[Sixstrings]

The one thing that is true about the history of energy, is that every time someone said we're gonna run out, then things changed and "they figured something out."

The "they'll figure something out" crowd has always been right.

I posted about it a long time ago -- I have a vintage newspaper I got at a yard sale, from the 1920s. It's got a peak oil article in it. Headline was something like "oil men fear the oil will run out!" It was doomy, folks were worried about it.

They even talked about turning coal into oil.

Ok, so that was about a hundred years ago. They didn't foresee oil tankers, or offshore oil, or worldwide production and world oil trade.

And I remember when I joined this forum, and everyone poo-pooed tar sands and shale. Yet look at how they've worked out. Shale boom in US, coming worldwide shale boom.

Just as in the 1920s, there are things that we can't foresee now.

I've always been careful not to touch this third rail, since this is a peak oil website after all, but truth is I was always on the fence and never could really buy into the peak oil doom. I'm more interested in economics.. and that's been the event-shaper these past number of years, starting with the financial crisis.

[Strummer]

The one thing that is true about the history of energy, is that every time someone said we're gonna run out, then things changed and "they figured something out."

The "they'll figure something out" crowd has always been right.

What? There were many situations in human history where we ran out of energy, with catastrophic consequences. You are talking only about the last 200 years or so, while ignoring the 9,800 years of settled civilization before. Of course a global energy collapse didn't occur before, due to the fact there was no global civilization to begin with. But there were plenty of energy-caused local collapses. In fact, EVERY single large civilization collapsed when it reached its low EROEI / high complexity limits.

[Sixstrings]

In fact, EVERY single large civilization collapsed when it reached its low EROEI / high complexity limits.

Well I'm just thinking about the whole arc there, from animal power to steam power and the steam age, and coal, then oil, and constant advancements that never end.

Fusion will be up next, and better solar, and who knows what.

Seriously I joined this forum years ago now and I do remember everyone poo-pooed tar sands and shale. It'll "never work out," they said, and they had all these reasons why. Well, they have worked out.

But ok I'll get my hand off this third rail and rejoin the congregation..

Here's a peak oil concern: even getting down to HALF current production is pretty serious. And then what the heck is South America and Asia and Africa going to do.. they're never going to be covered with fusion power plants or whatever. That just ain't gonna happen, not in time. And petroleum is needed for medicine and agriculture too, not to mention plastic.

I guess the key will be biological oil. And making "plastic" from plant fibers, that's already being done, I forget the name of it and details.

[Strummer]

Seriously I joined this forum years ago now and I do remember everyone poo-pooed tar sands and shale. It'll "never work out," they said, and they had all these reasons why. Well, they have worked out.

But they haven't worked out. The economy is not really able to sustain them, it's simply huge amounts of debt that enabled them temporarily. The USA is able to borrow huge amounts of investment capital from the rest of the world, that capital is used to prop up the shale bubble. The results are a short-term energy boom in the USA and a slow-moving collapse everywhere else.

[westexas]

The $64 Trillion Question

Production by the (2005) Top 33 net exporters was up slightly from 2005 to 2012, but their increasing consumption caused their net exports (what I call Global Net Exports of oil, or GNE) in 2012 to be below 2005, with a sizable rate of decline in their ECI Ratio (ratio of production to consumption).

Furthermore, because of rapid increases in oil consumption by China & India (“Chindia”), what I define as Available Net Exports (ANE or GNE less Chindia’s Net Imports, or CNI) fell much more rapidly than GNE.

What happens from 2012 to 2022 is what I call the “$64 Trillion Question.”

Here are the 2012 values for the Top 33 net exporters in 2005, along with 2005 to 2012 rates of change (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA, for net exports):

Production: 63 mbpd (+0.3%/year)
Consumption: 19 mbpd (+2.2%/year)
Net Exports: 44 mbpd (-0.5%/year)

Chindia’s Net Imports in 2012 and 2005 to 2012 rate of increase:

8.8 mbpd (+8.7%/year)

ANE (GNE less CNI) in 2012 and 2005 to 2012 rate of change:

35 mbpd (-2.3%/year)

If we assume that Top 33 production falls at 1.0%/year from 2012 to 2022 and if we assume that consumption continues to increase at the same rate (2.2%/year), GNE in 2022 would be down to 33 mbpd, almost a 3%/year rate of decline. Given this decline rate, unless Chindia’s consumption of GNE falls at 3%/year, or more, the resulting rate of decline in ANE will exceed the GNE decline rate, and the ANE decline rate will accelerate with time.

For example, let’s assume that Chindia’s rate of increase in net imports falls to 5%/year (versus 8.7%/year from 2005 to 2012). Their net imports in 2022 would be up to about 15 mbpd. ANE would be 33 (GNE) – 15 (CNI) = 18 mbpd (ANE), approximately a 50% reduction in the volume of Global Net Exports of oil available to about 155 net oil importing countries (versus 35 mbpd in 2012 and versus 41 mbpd in 2005). The 2012 to 2022 rate of decline in ANE would be 6.6%/year.

Here is what happened from 2002 to 2012 in regard to the ratio of Global Net Exports of oil (GNE) to Chindia's Net Imports (CNI). At a GNE/CNI Ratio of 1.0, the volume of Global Net Exports of oil available to about 155 net importing countries would theoretically be zero. Note that the above described scenario would put the GNE/CNI Ratio at about 2.2 in 2022.

[radon1]

Probably in excess of 50 years before oil production drops below half what is currently.

Sounds pretty ominous, actually. Not much time left. Would be interesting to know, how the decline will develop over time, - i.e. how many years will come by before the production declines by 1/16th, then 1/8th, then 1/4th. Will it be linear or non-linear, smooth or abrupt. And then we can discuss what kind of effect these declines may have on the economies - and most probably, disastrous.

Looks really like they want to put a positive spin on bad news.

[ROCKMAN]

Sorry folks...late to the party. In case I missed it did someone point out that PO and its ramifications have nothing to do with how long we will be producing petroleum? Thus the entire premise is false. As far as being a "doomer" over the PO dynamic I'm certainly not a part of that crew. I'm Dog gone happy the way things are playing out...making big bucks sitting on my crippled ass in front of a computer. LOL. OTOH I might feel a bit doomerish if I were sitting in a VA hospital with my legs blown off by an IED while "exporting democracy" to some ME country. Or if I had to choose between how well my family eats this week or filling my gas tank up so I can go work.

Straw man, straw man, where for art thou, straw man?

[ralfy]

Reposts:

"The only true metric of energy abundance: The rate of flow"

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... te-of-flow

"Commentary: Interview with Steve Kopits"

Peak oil does not occur when we run out of oil. Peak oil occurs when the marginal consumer is no longer willing to pay the cost of extracting and processing the marginal barrel of oil. And we can actually calculate what the related numbers are.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013- ... eve-kopits

[Beery1]

...truth is I was always on the fence and never could really buy into the peak oil doom.

So Sixstrings is not just a right wingnut, he's also a cornucopian. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

[MD]

Yep we have over a 100 10X years left of oil folks...

X= a bunch. It's more limited to how long life lasts on earth than it is on amount of current consumption. I'm looking out over an algae filled lake right now that will likely be an oil sourse 10x years from now.

It's been filling with debris for 15,000 or so years since the last glacial age. 10x years from now it might end up buried under 2000 feet of rock.

Probably in excess of 50 years before oil production drops below half what is currently. Counting natural gas in total hydrocarbons, probably 90 to 140.

Yeah maybe, but at what cost?

It is likely that this will be enough time to transition to renewables, nuclear, and biomass, with some oil still used for long distance transportation.

Will be for some, but not all peoples. This is a problem that is bugging all peoples at a base and ever increasing level today.

And now there isn’t as much DOOM. Peak oil pundits appear to have reached peak doom and are now running out.

They are over in social media engaged in flame wars with the rest of the ever-growing virtual flash-mob. Thank God for Facebook!

Happy Days are Back...

They never left for those with perspective.

[ROCKMAN]

MD - "They never left for those with perspective.". Actually these are some of the happiest of my 23,000 or so days. But, then again, I sell oil for a living as well as having a rather small fossil fuel footprint. Happy days indeed.

[steam_cannon]

Yep we have over a 100 years left of oil folks, Doom over sorry to ruin your party.. Probably in excess of 50 years before oil production drops below half what is currently.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but really? "50 years before oil production drops below half what is currently" oh that's great, I used to be able to fill up my gas tank with pocket change and you're telling me these high gas prices are here to stay? Well dang, let's celebrate (sarcasm).

By the way that article is from 2012 and their estimates include shale such as shale oil from California which was cut by 96% last I heard, US shale oil overall has been cut by 1/3. So this article you're referencing is kinda dated and they was kinda wrong in some big ways. So yeah. Thanks for your really in-depth and timely input. That last sentence is also sarcasm.

The one thing that is true about the history of energy, is that every time someone said we're gonna run out, then things changed and "they figured something out."

The "they'll figure something out" crowd has always been right.

What? There were many situations in human history where we ran out of energy, with catastrophic consequences. You are talking only about the last 200 years or so, while ignoring the 9,800 years of settled civilization before. Of course a global energy collapse didn't occur before, due to the fact there was no global civilization to begin with. But there were plenty of energy-caused local collapses. In fact, EVERY single large civilization collapsed when it reached its low EROEI / high complexity limits.

Well human history has certainly had a great deal of collapses and success stories. Cuba being a recent example of success. Of course it wasn't a cakewalk for cuba, the average person lost 20 pounds and that was a relatively smooth transition. But relatively smooth transitions are possible. Humans have a long history of finding a way.

I think most of the "we're gonna run out soon" crowd left long ago, I think they're obsessing over immigration and FEMA camps right now, you might want to go look for them somewhere else.

+1

Timmac, looks like you were gone for awhile. You should know most of the ultra doomer crowd left. This place has mellowed out since the last time you were here. This is not the best place to troll for doomers anymore. Perhaps try another forum?

Hahaha, I suppose that's all true. But considering this site started in 2004 as a major downturn was forming (which many people expected) and culminated around 2008 when the recession was officially recognized So I'm not surprised this site seemed more doomy in the past. There was a lot going on.

Now where the future is heading, that's the million dollar question isn't it. We have only had a mild recovery for the last year or two in most fields of work. But that's not a very long period of time and our path seems to be still following the rocky path of a bumpy peak oil plateau, where oil production and economic production peaks and then rides a bumpy plateau where the economy stagnates, slightly recovers (where we are), then stagnates, then possibly crashes and recovers with life being "different", new technologies or less. So the future is hardly certain. I'm hoping for a smooth transition into new technologies, but the bump we are in of economic recovery over a few years is just a tick of the second hand to me, hardly meaningful.

[steam_cannon]

MD - "They never left for those with perspective.". Actually these are some of the happiest of my 23,000 or so days. But, then again, I sell oil for a living as well as having a rather small fossil fuel footprint. Happy days indeed.

That's great you're enjoying life!

[ROCKMAN]

Steamie - And that's the sad reality of the energy dynamics: when I'm typically doing good my neighbors aren't. OTOH I don't think many of those folks shed tears for me when I was making $50/day delivering produce to restaurants in the mid 80's when the oil patch went through another of its cyclic busts. LOL