[SeaGypsy]

Yeah, we are on the same page. It's already happened and happening. The playing field is being levelled for the giants to have it out, standing on the minions heads. Us being the minions.

[SeaGypsy]

As a direct response to the OP; worry about it?
Worry; or do something?

Now is the time to do something if you are in the USA or Europe. If I was, I would 100% sure be buying land. Preferably deepwater riverfront, with a not too redneck neighborhood and low density. The point where you can still grab a farmlet for a year or two's wages on minimum are likely to disappear quickly. Suburbia is likely to become increasingly ugly as societies lose the surplus ability to sustain any kind of broad/ non emergency social support; with even this stripped bare.

Australia on the other hand is still hyper inflated; much because of our very thoroughly managed land release system and allowance/ encouragement for foreign ownership. We will have our day.

[Ibon]

I guess it was back in 2005 or so that I first posted about "the catalyst of consequences" being the only force toward any meaningful transition. It was already back then that Montequest and others would point out that mitigation has to start immediately and that we cant wait for consequences.

Nothing has really changed. We live and die by the economic forces and embedded asset inertia that determine our direction forward. Consequences will impose a slow slow change punctuated by events that will accelerate change.

We all know this. In fact this is the very mechanism by which exceeding your carrying capacity gets played out. We hang on to what we know and cling harder, against all logic, when consequences start.

It is only during abundant times of excess wealth and resources that one can actually plan a transition. We have moved beyond that and are at the mercy of a script we have collectively chosen.

What is the mystery here. I see none?

[Graeme]

"The world is improving better than pessimists know, but dangers are worse than optimists indicate."

The 2012 State of the Future Report states that, “The world is improving better than most pessimists know, but future dangers are worse than most optimists indicate.” After 16 years of global futures research, we have “found more agreement about how to build a better future than is evident in the media”, according to Jerome C. Glenn, CEO of The Millennium Project and co-author of the 2012 State of the Future. “When you consider the many wrong decisions and good decisions not taken—day after day and year after year around the world—it is amazing that we are still making as much progress as we are.”

This year’s report verifies that the world is getting richer, healthier, better educated, more peaceful, and better connected, and that people are living longer; yet, half the world is potentially unstable. Protesters around the world show a growing unwillingness to tolerate unethical decisionmaking by power elites. An increasingly educated and Internet-connected generation is rising up against the abuse of power. Food prices are rising, water tables are falling, corruption and organized crime are increasing, environmental viability for our life support is diminishing, debt and economic insecurity are increasing, climate change continues, and the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen dangerously. However, the most recent data from the World Bank shows that the share of world population living in extreme poverty has fallen from 52% in 1981 to about 20% in 2010.

The world is in a race between implementing ever-increasing ways to improve the human condition and the seemingly ever-increasing complexity and scale of global problems. So, how are we doing in this race? What’s the score so far?

The World’s Report Card

Where are we winning?
• Access to water
• Internet users
• Literacy rate
• GDP/capita
• Life expectancy at birth
• Women in parliaments
• School enrollment, secondary
• Energy efficiency
• Poverty $1.25 a day
• Population growth
• Infant mortality
• Undernourishment prevalence
• Wars
• Nuclear proliferation
• HIV prevalence

Where are we losing?
• Total debt
• Unemployment
• Income inequality
• Ecological footprint /biocapacity ratio
• GHG emissions
• Terrorist attacks
• Voter turnout

Where is there no significant change or change is not clear?
• Corruption
• Freedom rights
• Electricity from renewables
• Forest lands
• R&D expenditures
• Physicians per capita

There is no question that the world can be far better than it is, IF we make the right decisions. The State of the Future sets a context and framework for better decisions.

energybulletin

[sparky]

.
Long ago , I proposed three configurations for the post peak future

1- the cliff ,
self explanatory , that's the porn-doomster scenario
things collapse in an avalanche fashion, negative feedbacks dragging every tech down
fragmentation of every authorities , feudal system based on local "protection"

of course it could happen if there was a very severe supply disruption ,
but I doubt if it would happen in weeks , and after an initial dip it would bring the second scenario

2- the glide ,
severe husbanding of resources by rationing it would be enforced by strong authoritarian
means by a central governance invoking emergency power , bye bye meaningful democracy
authoritarian central planning , think war communism more or less

3- The stairs ,
my personal favorite.......... a succession of step downward with flat periods between
each area would have a different profile some zone might even get a bit of a rise now and again
the politics are all over with a strong populist line and "providential men " rising and falling

there could be any of those scenarios in different places and time , or simultaneously
the glide would see every scrape of energy used to exhaustion
the cliff would leave some remains protected by the general disorganization
the stairs would favor priviledged area , others would run dry faster

[ohanian]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8914
Note the exhibit 4 figure in the TOD piece. It assesses the shale gas supply at 23 years at current consumption levels. The big plans for gas transport would reduce this period to less than 10 years.

The problem is current consumption rate but as conventional oil/coal declines the consumption rate for shale gas will grow.



If we assume 40% growth rate for the next five years follow by 5% growth rate, then

[seenmostofit]

It was already back then that Montequest and others would point out that mitigation has to start immediately and that we cant wait for consequences.

Nothing has really changed.

Oh...I don't know about that. In 2005, there was the natural gas cliff, the Olduvai gorge in 2008 because of lack thereof, the best of the Jimmy Carter scare mongering all over again. While this is yet another example of how poorly the scarcity crowd understands resource economics, what we have gotten since then sure would qualify as "changed". 7 years from cliffs and gorges to more surplus than the markets know what to do with.

And what is the line from Prometheus? From such small beginnings? The revenge of "Who Killed the Electric Car" has turned into a mass produced, built in America, affordable, fast, quiet, powered by home grown American made fuels automobile. I measure the change from 2005 by every mile spent commuting to work without pouring my hard earned wages into funding OPEC despots. A solution which kills two birds with one stone, lessening dependence on foreign based fuels and putting the money towards building out American jobs, funding American families, paying American taxes and allowing us to DO something nowadays, rather than just selling each other smoothies and pedicures.

Buy American.....Fuels!!

[SilentRunning]

The problem with human nature is that unless something is perceived as an immediate problem, it is far too easy to take no action and "drift" into the future.

If I say that in 10 years, petroleum products will be much harder to find, expensive and that this will have profound implications for your job, lifestyle, diet, etc - then even if people find my argument 100% correct, and agree with it - then they will most likely do little or nothing to prepare for the that future. If I say the lights will go out NEXT WEEK, and that there wont be any more food, then people might take action.

It's like the way most people prepare for (A) retirement and (B) the imminent arrival of a hurricane.

[sparky]

.
conversely , the advantage of doing something only to clearly present problems is that
avoid wasting time and ressources on no-problems !

There is in France an oak forest which belong to the French Navy
planted in the 17th century by a clear sighted minister worried about the lack of big timber for naval construction ,
the oaks are now beautiful and ready for making warships keels

[dinopello]

From today's Washington Post

The survivalist: Roscoe Bartlett prepares for a threatened future

The electrical grid could fail tomorrow, he frequently warns. Food would disappear from the shelves. Water would no longer flow from the pipes. Money might become worthless. People could turn on each other, and millions would die.

They focus more on his personal survivalist preps rather than his record in congress at pushing preparedness for the nation, unfortunately. That would make any of us look like loons.

[evilgenius]

I would be in the slow crash category, believing that economic reality surrounding PO will take longer to impact the diverse markets as a whole than it would at first glance seem. The thing that takes me out of such a long time frame is the possibility of war. So far what war is in the PO age can be defined as a kind of neo-colonialism. This kind of war making is essentially safe, but monetarily draining, for the status quo. So far, however, the national interests of the large states haven't butted heads. When that happens it seldom resolves itself in a way that doesn't bring immense and swift change. It doesn't have to be a shooting war either to bring this change. The Cold War brought this kind of change just fine.

[vision-master]

Dumbing down people with football, sugar drinks, junk food, TV and alcohol does wonders too.

[dsula]

Dumbing down people with football, sugar drinks, junk food, TV and alcohol does wonders too.

This is called entertainment. What's life worth living if not for some fun?

[seenmostofit]

They focus more on his personal survivalist preps rather than his record in congress at pushing preparedness for the nation, unfortunately. That would make any of us look like loons.

Pushing is nice, the way to hell is paved with good intentions, did the guy ever accomplish ANYTHING? Wiki doesn't list much in the way of pro peak oil preparedness legislation, anything related to doubling the price of gasoline to force conservation or any of the obvious things I could see someone advocating.

[meemoe_uk]

I was quite surprised by this -RockDoc's peakoil type thread, so I sent him a private message asking him the basic questions.
- When do you think peak oil will be?
- how does what you say fit in with OF2's large catalogue of oil recent discoveries?
- Surely the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmos suggests there is plenty more buried in the ground?

Since he's a professional scientist, I expected straight answers. Instead he used a tactic most of the doomers on this site often employ. He didn't reply.
Any veteran doomer knows, its folly to make an estimate of year of peak oil, because you always get it wrong.
Also, the tone of RockDoc's post was " we are running out of fossil fuel ". This is actually a stronger term than we are peaking in fossil fuel . Running out comes quite a bit further along the old bell curve than the peak. So, is he saying we've already peaked?

So far RD has declined to clarify.

How the heck his take on reality fits in with fossil fuel being priced dirt cheap and still companies are finding it everywhere in abundance ( see OF2's catalogue, see peak oil debunked 192 : in 2006 : gigantic coal field found under Norwegian sea 3.5 times size of rest of entire worlds know reserves , etc )

As far as I can see, RD's view just doesn't fit in with these things. As RD says, he's been into this for 30+ years. That's certainly a lot of time. In this time a man can get very attached to certain ideas. Looks like RD might just have gotten smitten by peakoil and has hung his reputation on it.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, maybe he just hasn't bothered replying. I notice he's made other posts since my private message though.

How about a post from RD saying " back in the good old days, even the oil barrel scrubbers knew the US majors had found better oil in Saudi, so I don't see why they had to give that beggar Hubbert an unconditional tenure for stating the bleedin' obvious. He probably got the idea off a 16 year old barrel scrubber. "

[seahorse3]

Meeme, I accused RD of exactly the opposite on one of the first replies on this thread, so maybe you are mistaken about him? Maybe the fact that you take him to be a pessimist and me taking him to be an optimist means he is neither? Where I think you have erred is making this so personal. If you seed someone a PM, that means private. If it's supposed to be a private message you should respect and honor that, but you don't. Instead you make it a public message. It shows you never intended it to be private, thus he rightfully ignores you in both PM and here now. You have no integrity.

[Quinny]

Maybe he just thinks a stupid question isn't worth a sensible answer.

[rockdoc123]

quote]I was quite surprised by this -RockDoc's peakoil type thread, so I sent him a private message asking him the basic questions. [/quote]

I hardly ever look to see if I have a PM. Not sure why you would just not ask the question here in the public forum where everyone could have a go first rather than getting all pissy about being ignored.

- When do you think peak oil will be?

A few years back I posted a plot that showed based on the best estimates of WoodMackenzie Pathfinder data (back then I had paid access to that data) the timing would be around 2013 – 2015 if all the proposed projects were executed and heavy oil in Venezuela and Canada came on stream on time. This was, however a post made prior to the deep recession and the surge in shale liquid exploration in the US. I said on a number of occasions since then we will have a long bumpy plateau. Saudi Arabia is now getting close to what I suspect you will see from them as a maximum mainly due to infrastructure stress complicated by regular depletion of producing fields. The main projects are done, there isn’t a lot of exploration for oil left to do although there will be additional small finds which will help to offset natural declines in the big fields.
-

how does what you say fit in with OF2's large catalogue of oil recent discoveries?

I have applauded OF2 for keeping this database live over the last few years. But there does need to be a sense of reality brought to it. Many of the “reserves” reported in the press are related not to actual discoveries but to anomalies or closures identified on seismic, there is confusion between reserves and resources as well as what the likelihood of reserves being produced are (P1, P2, P3, contingent etc). As an example there has been voluminous press around Rockhoppers wells in the Maldives/Falklands but in reality they have never found anything commercial. I spent the greater part of my career reviewing other parties “reserves” as a means to valuation for A&D activities and even where there have been third party audits there is room for interpretation. The one point that is important to make is it is one thing to make a discovery and entirely another to bring it on stream. I pointed out a number of years ago that the history of West Africa is for a delay of about 10 years or more from discovery to production. Ten years of declines in existing production is volumetrically large which means such delays would only allow for flattening the peak not increasing it.

- Surely the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmos suggests there is plenty more buried in the ground?

Not sure what you are suggesting here. If it is that there should be a complete balance between CO2 in the atmosphere with CO2 in the subsurface that actually doesn’t make much sense. Carbon is sequestered in many ways, in the soil, plants and a very large volume in carbonates and coals and of course sea water. As well much of the worlds source rocks are immature and have not generated hydrocarbons of any type. As such there would be no reason to think that lower CO2 in the atmosphere means more hydrocarbons in the subsurface as the opposite would also be untrue.

[meemoe_uk]

the timing would be around 2013 – 2015 if all the proposed projects were executed and heavy oil in Venezuela and Canada came on stream on time.

Well did all the proposed projects get executed? Did the heavy oil Venezuela and Canada come on stream on time?

The year you've picked is interesting.
- It fits in with my prediction of an artificial peak ( as early as 2015 ). Like the one in 1980. A world recession will be induced by the international bankers, and oil prices will collapse. Note this recession would be bigger than the hollow media hype ones we've had recently. But still nothing like the US 1930s depression.
- Unfortunately it subscribes to the typical peaker doctrine of ' OMG peak about now! '. Peakers always put in corollaries that say the imminent peak has been delayed because of this recession and that new field.

I haven't seen your history of peak oil predictions. If this has been your only one then OK. But maybe you've done the typical peaker thing of predicting it to happen next year every year for the last 20 years.

But there does need to be a sense of reality brought to it. Many of the “reserves” reported in the press are related not to actual discoveries but to anomalies or closures identified on seismic, there is confusion between reserves and resources as well as what the likelihood of reserves being produced are (P1, P2, P3, contingent etc).

The part of reality you don't mention is the market price of oil. A lot of these field that fail the transition from prospects to commercial fail because the market price is so low. At £4000 a barrel, there'd be a lot more commercial viable fields, enough for another hundred years of increasing oil production I think.

The one point that is important to make is it is one thing to make a discovery and entirely another to bring it on stream. I pointed out a number of years ago that the history of West Africa is for a delay of about 10 years or more from discovery to production. Ten years of declines in existing production is volumetrically large which means such delays would only allow for flattening the peak not increasing it.

This paragraph just suggests to me you are a peaker. You are too focused on the peak. The 10 years delay of today doesn't matter at all long term. Bear in mind the market price can go into the $thousands per barrel. It only matters if you are anticipating a peak round about now and looking for little scraps that off-set the peak a year or two.

CO2 utopia
Maybe you haven't read my posts on CO2 in the biosphere. How much CO2 was there in Earth's original atmosphere? The guess I use is 20% at 6 times the current atmospheric density. That's about 3400 times as much as we've got in the atmos today. Most of this has been buried in the ground by ancient plant life, or absorbed by rocks and the oceans.
Commercial green houses today operate at about 1000 to 3000ppm CO2 to maximize plant growth.
The long term goal of fossil fuel burning should be to pump up world atmosphere CO2 to this commercial green house level. Then we can have a CO2 utopia, where wild plant life grows at such a high rate that we don't need fossil fuels anymore, wood would satisfy all our carbon burning needs. Of course there'd be plenty of nuclear power as well if needed.
We think plant life does pretty well in temperate regions around the world now. But 350ppm is actually pretty close to the 180-220ppm starvation limit for many plants.
What I'm saying is the need and peaking of fossil fuels doesn't matter, even for the niche of oil industry products when you can get high CO2 in the atmos.
When we burn fossil fuel it isn't 'lost' as peakers want to believe, its actually 'liberated' to be used and recycled for thousands of years by the biosphere. If it get stuck underground again we can dig it up again.

For the cause, if we run short of fossil fuel, we should continue to mine carbon rocks such as calcium carbonate.
This is a fitting view for a thread "Why we shouldn't worry about end times". There is no end time for carbon, only a new and better beginning. Getting our carbon needs entirely from forests will be a lot cleaner and safer than mining it from the ground.