[yesplease]

If oil prices had gone much higher or production of oil was widely seen as being passed peak credit problems would've developed as well due to economic uncertainty, to what extent depends on how credit markets would've functioned.

How would significant credit problems have developed due to passing peak?

that's still the wildcard, isn't. Is it going to a mere recession and maybe even a relatively light one at that or are we going to continue in a death spiral? things seem reasonably quiet at the moment.

There's a world of difference between a recession and death spiral you mentioned. Even a light world recession would cut 10-15% or more off of demand if we see behavior similar to the drop in the 70s/80s, which is probably more than enough to keep prices on the low side, say around $50/bbl average, for the next decade.

[JohnDenver]

To say peakoil isn't a problem at all anymore is simply untrue, prices may be the lowest in almost 5 years but that doesn't mean that production is up.

I disagree with your assumption that the only way to mitigate peak oil is by raising production. It will be solved on the demand side, through conservation and substitution. In fact, we're doing that in a small way right now -- creating a glut by using less.

Anyway, the bottom line doesn't change: oil is cheap and we're swimming in it. Ergo, peak oil isn't a problem.

[MonteQuest]

Then the prediction looks even more far off. We are not going to see $250 oil in the midst of the 2009 world wide depression.

I rather doubt he included a depression in his thinking before he said that.

[MonteQuest]

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Perhaps, but whatever is coming, it obviously wasn't caused by peak oil.
Bottom line: peak oil isn't a problem at all anymore. There's a huge glut of the stuff.

In an over-leveraged, debt encrusted world where 40% of GDP was speculation and the carrying capacity is exceeded by billions needs little trigger to bring down the house of cards. Many have opined that the rising costs of energy and food was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

Peak oil is no longer a problem? This glut wiill carry us into the infinite future?

[MonteQuest]

Oil may be back below $40 but a world wide depression is coming.

Well, recession at least.

Recession coming? We have been in a recession since DEC 2007.

[MonteQuest]

That said, who knows, maybe it'll be a very mild recession and world consumption could pop up a bit.

It is already the worse recession in history.

[MonteQuest]

I disagree with your assumption that the only way to mitigate peak oil is by raising production. It will be solved on the demand side, through conservation and substitution.

I agree, but the level of conservation required will implode the world economy for as far as one can see, thus precluding the rise of substitution except on a small and local scale.

Meanwhile...3 billion more are looking to arrive on planet earth.

The pie will soon get so small, you won't get a piece...maybe a crumb if you are lucky.

[yesplease]

I agree, but the level of conservation required will implode the world economy for as far as one can see, thus precluding the rise of substitution except on a small and local scale.

Lets see, World GDP increased from 1982/83 to 1990 by ~20-25% while world oil consumption dropped by over 10% during the same time period. It seems like we can have a significant reduction in oil consumption w/o imploding the economy.

[MonteQuest]

It seems like we can have a significant reduction in oil consumption w/o imploding the economy.

If you think an economy based upon reselling stuff already made is something to strive for, have at it. 40% of GDP growth is financial speculation which is unraveling righ now before your blind eyes.

There is no such thing as a free lunch or GDP growth. All that speculation was based upon the future being larger than today.

And since nothing grows without an input of energy....

[yesplease]

It seems like we can have a significant reduction in oil consumption w/o imploding the economy.

If you think

Like I said before, it isn't about what you or I think, it's about what has actually happened. We have seen a 10-15% reduction in world oil consumption along w/ a ~20-25% increase in world GDP. We can use less w/o the economy "imploding".

[TonyPrep]

Lets see, World GDP increased from 1982/83 to 1990 by ~20-25% while world oil consumption dropped by over 10% during the same time period. It seems like we can have a significant reduction in oil consumption w/o imploding the economy.

Nah. You've honed in on a particular time period which suits your position, without any regard for how GDP and oil consumption fluctuated within that period. For example, it may have been easy, over that period, to increase fuel efficiency in cars, but you'll never be able to do that forever. GDP and oil consumption appears to have varied in similar ways, during that period but efficiencies, at that time, managed to get the world more bang for their bucks. Whether that can be done indefinitely is certainly not possible to conclude from that brief efficiency drive.

[yesplease]

Lets see, World GDP increased from 1982/83 to 1990 by ~20-25% while world oil consumption dropped by over 10% during the same time period. It seems like we can have a significant reduction in oil consumption w/o imploding the economy.

Nah.

So you're contending that the economy and oil prices behaved differently than is written in the history books? How so? Did the aliens who taught you to live sustainably tell you so?

[TonyPrep]

So you're contending that the economy and oil prices behaved differently than is written in the history books?

No. You've honed in on a particular time period which suits your position, without any regard for how GDP and oil consumption fluctuated within that period. For example, it may have been easy, over that period, to increase fuel efficiency in cars, but you'll never be able to do that forever. GDP and oil consumption appears to have varied in similar ways, during that period but efficiencies, at that time, managed to get the world more bang for their bucks. Whether that can be done indefinitely is certainly not possible to conclude from that brief efficiency drive.

[TheDude]

To say peakoil isn't a problem at all anymore is simply untrue, prices may be the lowest in almost 5 years but that doesn't mean that production is up.

I disagree with your assumption that the only way to mitigate peak oil is by raising production. It will be solved on the demand side, through conservation and substitution. In fact, we're doing that in a small way right now -- creating a glut by using less.

Anyway, the bottom line doesn't change: oil is cheap and we're swimming in it. Ergo, peak oil isn't a problem.

The price of oil is cheap at the moment almost purely due to decreased demand, which is elastic enough to be back at 2007 levels when the current recession ends in a few years. What little impact deleveraging is having on the price is a trifle of what it was before due to the collapse in sizeable investment funds, thus the volatility on the rebound promises to be even more extreme.

There will be little mass movement over to electric personal vehicles anytime soon, with GM barely above water and Toyota having canceled their new Prii plant. 2009 promises to be even more desultory for automakers; note that the Think company is in need of a bail out: Norway: Government denies direct aid to Think EV maker. Cottage scale EV builders are headed nowhere but down; Shai Aggasi would do better to try and hawk his plans in Dubai than in a state on the brink of insolvency.

[yesplease]

You've honed in on a particular time period which suits your position, without any regard for how GDP and oil consumption fluctuated within that period.

World oil consumption dropped ~13% and stayed there, while world GDP marched upwards at a fairly steady rate, what fluctuations are you referring to?

For example, it may have been easy, over that period, to increase fuel efficiency in cars, but you'll never be able to do that forever.

That's true, but the post I was responding to never stated anything about forever. It stated (roughly) that we could not reduce oil consumption w/o imploding the economy, which is demonstrably false. No mention of forever in either post...

Whether that can be done indefinitely is certainly not possible to conclude from that brief efficiency drive.

It seems you're having trouble reading again TonyPrep. Neither the post I was responding to nor the post I made included the idea of doing anything indefinitely. You can cling to that cornucopian notion all you like but it ain't for me. All I stated was that world oil consumption could decrease w/o the economy imploding, not that it would do so perpetually as you're suggesting.

[TonyPrep]

You've honed in on a particular time period which suits your position, without any regard for how GDP and oil consumption fluctuated within that period.

World oil consumption dropped ~13% and stayed there, while world GDP marched upwards at a fairly steady rate, what fluctuations are you referring to?

Oil consumption fell for only a 2 to 3 year period. It's hard to tell, from your link, but I've seen other charts showing GDP to have a very low, or zero, growth over that small period. Thereafter, both resumed their growth. But you took a much longer period to try to make the figures appear to support your particular view.

That's true, but the post I was responding to never stated anything about forever.

You've been around here long enough to realise that just stating that some situation is possible over some short period is not particularly helpful. Those that are concerned about the situation are not thinking of the next 2-3 years, but the next 2-3 generations, at least.

[yesplease]

You've honed in on a particular time period which suits your position, without any regard for how GDP and oil consumption fluctuated within that period.

World oil consumption dropped ~13% and stayed there, while world GDP marched upwards at a fairly steady rate, what fluctuations are you referring to?

Oil consumption fell for only a 2 to 3 year period. It's hard to tell, from your link, but I've seen other charts showing GDP to have a very low, or zero, growth over that small period. Thereafter, both resumed their growth. But you took a much longer period to try to make the figures appear to support your particular view.

Maybe U.S. GDP, but world GDP kept on chugging. As for the drop, it was ~13% over a few years followed by a flat line, and the world economy definitely didn't implode.

That's true, but the post I was responding to never stated anything about forever.

You've been around here long enough to realise that just stating that some situation is possible over some short period is not particularly helpful. Those that are concerned about the situation are not thinking of the next 2-3 years, but the next 2-3 generations, at least.

Whether or not you consider it helpful is fine, but besides the point. I was pointing out that regardless of the fearmongering of others, we can see a reduction in oil consumption w/o the economy imploding. During that time, if oil's availability is considered a significant problem, we can begin the transition to alternatives.

[TonyPrep]

I was pointing out that regardless of the fearmongering of others, we can see a reduction in oil consumption w/o the economy imploding. During that time, if oil's availability is considered a significant problem, we can begin the transition to alternatives.

Great!

[kublikhan]

I posted this in another thread, but I thought it worth repeating here:

The price of oil is a leveraged derivative of the growth of the economy.

Energy Stocks Will Roar Back, But Not Soon

IE, now that the days of oil a' plenty are over, the price of oil is no longer driven primarily by the cost of production. The price of oil is now tied and leveraged to the growth/decline of world GDP. And because it is leveraged, small declines in GDP can lead to big declines in price of oil. Likewise, small increases in GDP can lead to big increases in the price of oil. Therefore, if you are predicting stratospheric rises in the price of oil, you should also be predicting world GDP growth. Or if you are predicting Great Depression II, you should also be predicting low oil prices.

[hardtootell]

I saw this on BBC. Its our future too with Russian when we run out of gas IMHO

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7806616.stm