Conspiracy Theory or Plausible?

[James Boston]

I found this site after reading a magazine article:

Peak Oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

What do you guys think?

[sam h]

Do an archive search. This subject has been discussed ad nauseum.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I found this site after reading a magazine article:

Peak Oil (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)

What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.
I have studied this phenomena (a university degree, no kidding). It is no conspiracy, it is just a vital part of how the dynamics of the world economy functions. Still more oil is found than used but there is an end to it and as it becomes more scarce the price will rise. It will on the other hand, never run dry as the future expected value of it will rise dramatically and therefore incent some companies to keep their reservoirs.

In case you haven't discovered (and it seems much of American opinion hasn't) this is the real reason for the Iraqi War (not WMD and terrorism bla bla bla). The American Economy will nearly collapse if the oil price rises too much and the Republican hawks felt a need to strengthen their control of it.

As to alternative energy sources, oil is still so relatively cheap but as the price rises more money will automatically pour into research of alternative sources.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
It is no conspiracy, it is just a vital part of how the dynamics of the world economy functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubts that the problem exists. However, the author paints a picture of an unavoidable crisis of global proportions that will end with the US turning into the movie Mad Max. That's what sounded a little conspiracy theoryesque to me.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is no conspiracy, it is just a vital part of how the dynamics of the world economy functions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubts that the problem exists. However, the author paints a picture of an unavoidable crisis of global proportions that will end with the US turning into the movie Mad Max. That's what sounded a little conspiracy theoryesque to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hate to bring this to you but the current US economy and world supremacy is already over the peak (it is based on consumption and military spending that is not in line with production).

However there is 250 mill. people living there and they are not stupid and they will find other ways to make a living and utilize energy; so you will still have cars etc.

This is not something that happens in a short period of time. The rise in the oil price will provoke the transition when necessary (only unexpected supply disruptions can cause a collapse).

[natedogg]

Peakoil fearmongers have one piece of information, namely that oil is depleting on us.

From there, they speculate wildly about how things will be without oil in the event that NOTHING ELSE changes whatsoever about our use and procurement of energy.

Peak oil is a problem. It's not going to cause a mad-max world. A recession, probably. Mad-max? No.

natedogg

[Dead]

Peak oil is a myth imo.

High prices usually bring the worst out in people.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
From there, they speculate wildly about how things will be without oil in the event that NOTHING ELSE changes whatsoever about our use and procurement of energy.


[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing I found most worrying is this (and I'm probably not going to say this right, but I think you'll get it):

By the time we have to deal with the problem, the cost of "harvesting" other energy sources will be so high, because of the cost of the energy used in the process, that we still lose. Essentially, cost exceeding return.

[Dead]

The market will take care of it once this happens. It's self-correcting.

[tek]

Jevron's Paradox seems scary if true.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to bring this to you but the current US economy and world supremacy is already over the peak

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually peaked around 1965, economically speaking.

Militarily, its right about at its peak and ready for China to take the lead in Asia.

India might be an economic wildcard, but wont be any match for China's upcoming Asian hegemony.

Hopefully, the Islamic world is entering a period of reform and eventual revitalization.

Europe is clearly in a period of heavy transition.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The market will take care of it once this happens. It's self-correcting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im going to say this once and then run as fast as I can:

Markets can fail.

Oh the humanity.

[Dead]

I know markets can fail.

I constantly remind the conservatives about that.

But I believe that it can self-correct in this case.

[CORed]

Although research into alternative energy sources is desirable, it should be noted that we already know how to produce energy from wind, solar, and a variety of alternative sources. These energy sources are not being used, not because we don't know how to use them, but because they are not cost-competitive with fossil fuels. When they become cost-competitive, they will be used. This is not to say that the transition will be without economic upheaval. A lot of the gloom-and-doomers seem to assume that oil is the only possible energy sourece. It isn't. It's just the cheapest source right now.

[whiskeytown]

if demand were consistant, this would be a problem but not overtly so.

However, with China/India ramping up to industrial leader status, the demand in those countries is gonna go thru the roof, so to speak - and for us as well....so there ya go....hence the predictions of disaster

personally, I'm inclined to believe it's gonna be a serious problem - esp. given our dependance on it -

RB

[lehighguy]

I can't really speak to the amount of crude in the ground. That is a scientific endeavor. So to is estimating new discoveries/sources etc.

However, I can tell you that we could significantly reduce fuel and energy shortages/reduce prices by modernizing our regulations and equipment.

We have not built a new oil refinery in the US in several decades. In many cases we are unable to refine oil we have and it just sits in warehouses. Then companies have to deal with the fact that each state, county, etc. has thier own fuel standards and regs. This means that if there is a surplus in one area and a deficiet in another you can't simply take from one and give to another. The misallocation results in waste and higher prices.

That's just a little jist of what I got from the energy trader over at Goldmen. He went on for hours but I'm not gonna put it all here.

[nicky g]

"Peakoil fearmongers have one piece of information, namely that oil is depleting on us.

From there, they speculate wildly about how things will be without oil in the event that NOTHING ELSE changes whatsoever about our use and procurement of energy."


I have no idea whether his facts and reasoning are correct, but you are wrong to say he simply assumes nothing will change or ignores the possibilities of alternatives; he deals with it quite explicitly:

[ QUOTE ]
"To illustrate, as of November 2004, a barrel of oil costs about $45. The amount of energy contained in that barrel of oil would cost between $100-$250* dollars to derive from alternative sources of energy. Thus, the market won't signal energy companies to begin aggressively pursuing alternative sources of energy until oil reaches the $100-$250 mark.

*This does not even account for the amount of money it would take to locate and refine the raw materials necessary for a large scale conversion, the construction and deployment of the alternatives, and finally the retrofitting of the world's $45 trillion dollar infrastructure to run on these alternative sources.

Once they do begin aggressively pursuing these alternatives, there will be a 25-to-50 year lag time between the initial heavy-duty research into these alternatives and their wide-scale industrial implementation.

However, in order to finance an aggressive implementation of alternative energies, we need a tremendous amount of investment capital - in addition to affordable energy and raw materials - that we absolutely will not have once oil prices are permanently lodged in the $200 per barrel neighborhood.

While we need 25-to-50 years to retrofit our economy to run on alternative sources of energy, we may only get 25-to-50 days once oil production peaks."


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure.

People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them.

Each of the alternatives is besieged by numerous fundamental physical shortcomings that have, thus far, received little attention. For a detailed analysis of the various alternatives oil, go on to page two.



[/ QUOTE ]

and so on.

I think it may well be true that market forces will eventually solve this and force us into setting up alternative energy supplies, but the transition period could still be pretty horrific. This is perhaps my major gripe against relying on markets other than the fact that many want tor ely on them in areas where they cannot succeed: left alone, the transition periods can be devestating. For example Thatcher was no doubt right that it made more economic sense for the UK as a whole to import coal rather than mine it; but by allowing the wholesale closire of pits that entire communities depended on without any serious attempts at easing the transition she utterly devestated hundreds of thousand sof lives and the effects can still be seen today in plenty of heavily fdepressed former mining communities. Given the massive extenet to which the world relies on oil these days, simpy letting market forces do the job and not worrying about what the transition they'll effect will do to us is pretty foolish IMO. I do also wonder what is going to replace plastic when oil and gas run out.

[nicky g]

Didn't notice how badly typed the above was and it's too late to edit my post now; here it is again:

I think it may well be true that market forces will eventually solve this and force us into setting up alternative energy supplies, but the transition period could still be pretty horrific. This is perhaps my major gripe against relying entirely on markets other than the fact that many want to rely on them in areas where they cannot succeed: left alone, the transition periods can be devastating. For example Thatcher was no doubt right that it made more economic sense for the UK as a whole to import coal rather than mine it; but by allowing the wholesale closure of pits that entire communities depended on without any serious attempts at easing the transition away from domestically produced coal, she utterly devastated hundreds of thousands of lives and the effects can still be seen today in plenty of heavily depressed, no-job former mining communities. Given the massive extenet to which the world relies on oil these days, simpy letting market forces do the job and not worrying about what the transition they'll effect will do to us is pretty foolish IMO. I do also wonder what is going to replace plastic when oil and gas run out.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Still more oil is found than used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but that is not correct. I struggle to remember the discovery of a genuinely new oil field in the last decade or 15 years. Saudi Arabia, for instance, identified its last "new field" ages ago, looks like.

The rest of the crude that's out there all over the world (e.g. Mediterranean Sea) and not getting produced out yet oh we're gonna pump it out alright eventually but it's so sulphur-heavy that the oil products (e.g. gasoline) that are gonna be refined out of it will be even more expensive than they are now.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still more oil is found than used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry but that is not correct. I struggle to remember the discovery of a genuinely new oil field in the last decade or 15 years. Saudi Arabia, for instance, identified its last "new field" ages ago, looks like.

The rest of the crude that's out there all over the world (e.g. Mediterranean Sea) and not getting produced out yet oh we're gonna pump it out alright eventually but it's so sulphur-heavy that the oil products (e.g. gasoline) that are gonna be refined out of it will be even more expensive than they are now.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are both right. The estimate of remaining oil has risen more than consumption. Sorry for being unclear.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Europe is clearly in a period of heavy transition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm almost afraid to ask. What is "heavy transition" ?

[tek]

It's similar to the change in gravity in Back To The Future II...