Page 8 of 25

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 09:37:30
by Revi
I think that we will be forced to give up a lot of cars here in the US, re-localize and take the bus a lot.

It will be a change, but the ones who will cry will be us baby boomers. I think the next generation already can see the change coming. We'll live in small houses close to our work, bike and walk or live on small farms and come in to town once or twice a week.

It will be a lot more like the way most other people in the world live.

There will be cell phones and computers to take our minds off of the fact that we can't just roam around in giant cars cruising the mall any more.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 09:42:10
by dinopello
Revi wrote:That means that 8 or 9 billion people will be sharing the amount of oil we had back in the 60's.

It could be done, but it will mean a lot more people living on the edge, and a lot less energy intensive car suburbs around the world.


I think you mean it will be done. It's just a matter of how pleasant it will be. And, that is partly a function of what we do now with the oil we are burning.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 12:54:37
by mos6507
KevO wrote:what does this mean EXACTLY in language I can tell Ma and Pa?

Does this mean demand destruction or that we have admission from the IEA of peak oil

RSVP somebody!


It means the energybulletin has posted another piece that spins the news as they see fit. Sorry to say that the IEA report has enough equivocation going on to avoid alarming the masses. That's the whole reason why the whistle-blowers came forward to begin with.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 12:57:52
by Ferretlover
Totally off topic, and, I apologise for that, but, at first, I thought the title was "IEA: We've peeked" and I thought, 'at what, the actual numbers and situation?' :lol:
Again, sorry!

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 17:40:06
by Newfie
rangerone314 wrote:
Assuming the Uppsala figure is approximate, anyone else have a different take on this?


What about food production? With soil productivity going down, and mouths to feed going up?

I think we will see a big push to become vegetarians. That is the only significant elasticity in the food chain. Don't know how far that can stretch.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 17:41:32
by Chuckmak
Ferretlover wrote:Totally off topic, and, I apologise for that, but, at first, I thought the title was "IEA: We've peeked" and I thought, 'at what, the actual numbers and situation?' :lol:
Again, sorry!


:lol:

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 17:50:40
by Tyler_JC
They're talking about OECD countries. Population growth in OECD countries is rapidly leveling off, if not dropping, as in the case of Japan.

Why should we expect oil demand to rise significantly if the population isn't growing?

The IEA is assuming any growth in GDP and energy demand can be met with efficiency and conservation.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 18:28:52
by dukey
uk population is growing due to immigration

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 18:31:23
by Ludi
dukey wrote:uk population is growing due to immigration
That's right. No native English people are having babies.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 19:18:29
by mos6507
Ludi wrote:That's right. No native English people are having babies.


No, they aren't. it's that terrible UK dentistry. Bad teeth are such a turn off.

Image

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Tue 24 Nov 2009, 22:04:19
by cipi604
rangerone314 wrote:
Revi wrote:More to the point, if the folks at Uppsala are right in their estimates (at it seems a reasonable estimate), I don't think 65 mbpd by 2030 means you'll have zombie biker gangs roaming the countryside pillaging homes. India may have a $2,000 car but I don't think someone buying a $2,000 car can afford $5/gal gasoline better than Americans.

Assuming the Uppsala figure is approximate, anyone else have a different take on this?

And you base your assumption on what actually?

First.The whole infrastructure of USA is build on the premise that oil will never pass 30$ a barrel, the whole country is already on the brink of collapse and if they didn't have for the past 10 years an unlimited credit card, it would be long time over.

USA has zero chances without the resources coming from abroad , and they offer 'hope and paper' in return for physical stuff.

Now who can afford stuff? Who has stuff to offer in exchange, and there are a lot of countries out there to offer that kind of thing. USA doesn't.

Second. The richness of a country, civilization itself, takes resources to be mantained. The richer you live, more resources are moved from the ground into the cities/roads/industry etc. The price to mantain USA to this level is a lot bigger than any other country. You have over 1 million miles of highways, that doesn't come for free for example. Now if you want to compete with India or China, and you have nothing in return but 'hope and paper' , you lose from the start.

Conclusion. Not the people in USA will afford x$ gasoline, but people who actually have less of a country to keep on going.

USA too big to fail? It already failed, they delay this fact, that's all.

65 mbpd by 2030 means NO exports. And 65 is too optimistic.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 00:59:12
by JustaGirl
65 mbpd by 2030 means NO exports. And 65 is too optimistic.


That's a pretty bold prediction. Are you expecting that much growth in countries that currently export, with the world around them collapsing? Would there be no oil for food programs going on? I suppose the cereals we export to 100+ countries is just junk paper too. That's good, they won't miss those imports then, I'm sure they're not needed. You paint a simplistic picture that the US is evil, and therefore will be cut off from the world. I believe the problem is much more complex than that. Everyone is going to be knocked down a few levels, that includes China and India, and of course the US.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 01:36:24
by cipi604
JustaGirl wrote:
65 mbpd by 2030 means NO exports. And 65 is too optimistic.


That's a pretty bold prediction. Are you expecting that much growth in countries that currently export, with the world around them collapsing? Would there be no oil for food programs going on? I suppose the cereals we export to 100+ countries is just junk paper too. That's good, they won't miss those imports then, I'm sure they're not needed. You paint a simplistic picture that the US is evil, and therefore will be cut off from the world. I believe the problem is much more complex than that. Everyone is going to be knocked down a few levels, that includes China and India, and of course the US.


Good point about the food. The cereals are like bananas, you can't live the way you're living now by just having income from the agriculture (Ukraine for example), you just can't.
If ever food will tend to be so expensive that a whole country will live the way USA is living now , everybody won't afford it. So you suggest USA will turn into a banana republic?! Good guess.That's what Jim Rogers said all the time.He is US american too.

USA is not evil , the politicians in USA are. 99% of the US americans are good guys. They just got dragged into this mess by their leaders, like any other country before them.

I play a simplistic picture because I'm a man, you play a complex picture because you're a woman. Different minds.

And my prediction is not bold, look at the decline rates, look at new big giants in decline like Cantarell, and take a wild guess , are we going to have a slow decline and long time exports from now, or a abrupt decline and an ending to exports. Food has everyone, oil not. Without oil there is no agriculture in USA.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 09:58:30
by Ferretlover
cipi604 wrote:Without oil energy, there is no agriculture in USA.

Fixed that for you. There was agriculture in the US before petroleum came on the scene.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 10:32:00
by Cloud9
Yes and it was on a grand scale look at bonanza farms in the 19th century. Last weekend I went to the Fly Wheelers. This is a group of hobbyist that has built a small town that does not run on electricity.

http://www.floridaflywheelers.org/

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 12:13:05
by evilgenius
2030? In pre-2010 world terms that is a long way off. Between now and then several things will have happened. Ghawar, for one, will have dropped off radically and will no longer be the world's number one field. West Africa should be running at about what the North Sea was, in terms of importance - not prod numbers. Iraq will be the most important country in terms of production.

I think, however, that it is wise to take into account that these things are only going to happen at the end of a predictable arc of events. The future is much more likely to go through a few iterations where, from our perspective, the events occurring are total chaos. No future is a dead lock from here, even if whatever happens is contained in the seeds of today.

Nonetheless, 65mbpd is probably optimistic. Maybe not too much, but in the camp of the optimists.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Wed 25 Nov 2009, 16:18:55
by EnergyUnlimited
So I wonder when US will reinvent itself as a slave driven latyfundial empire (very much like it was before President Lincoln...), where most of the wealth is generated in a form of agricultural products?
At some point much of these agricultural products would be sold by landlords and also corporations, regardless of fact that large proportion of Americans is starving.

How likely such scenario might come true?

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Sun 29 Nov 2009, 14:26:03
by Sys1
This 65mpd prediction is BS. IEA has grab the idea of peak oil, they now need to get what is EROEI.
I bet we will be around 30mbpd at best (from Olduvai theory we are supposed to have 30% energy from now in 2030).
Put now in the equation wars, hurricanes, pipeline bombing and the impossibility from tanker to cross the sees and we'll have virtually NOTHING.

In 2030, the only vehicules we'll see on roads will be shoes.

How crazy it is to calmly speak about 2030 oil production while we should just shout to the still sheeples in the middle of a global economic collapse :
DIE OFF, WAR, PESTILENCE, FAMINE.

Re: IEA: 'we've peaked'

Unread postPosted: Mon 30 Nov 2009, 15:12:42
by Ferretlover
Off topic posts deleted from this thread. Please stay on topic. Thank you.

Re: THE International Energy Agency (IEA) Thread pt 2 (merged)

Unread postPosted: Sat 13 Feb 2010, 12:11:38
by PeakOiler
Time to bump this thread with the latest world oil supply graph from the IEA:

Image

http://omrpublic.iea.org/

How long till supply goes over 87 mbd?
:roll: