Economic peak oil explained....

[slowmover]

We have discussed this previously, and I disagree that the limit has been reached. But (genuine question, not being argumentative) what alternative system would you see being used when/if that happens, or indeed to mitigate for the effects ?


Peak Oil is not about the amounts of oil remianing, but what can be recovered economically. And false ideas of "economy" are bound to fail (no news here; the natural world isn't factored in). The all-around cost is too high (not that it does, or will, matter . . we'll drill till we're dead.)

Instead of your leading question -- and disagreement, Arragonis ("genuine" is disingenous) -- why don't you re-define the problem and re-state what systematic attempts may "work" to clarify things in re this PO thing as you see it? If the question presupposes the answer, then your question is argumentative for it's dependence on definitions (nt provided). Black/white statement made? Line in the sand?

Could you provide those definitions? Or, whom is it you read to assert such? Yergin? Smil? Roubini? Other? From whence have you come? You are genuinely invited to re-state and re-formulate.

.

[Arragonis]

@Slowmover - Maybe my posting was not too clear, I did put some thought into it but I was doing other things at the same time so maybe the wordage got mangled - Apologies if it did.

My question as quoted (to Frank as it goes) was about his comments relating to economic growth as opposed to PO as a specific issue. This has come up before and has descended into arguments. I am interested in what Frank says - I am happy if he PMs me instead of posting here if that helps.

As for PO - I have no idea, I am neutral. It may have happened, it may be happening, it may never happen. I have "heard" of Yergin, Smil & Roubini from books and articles I have read but I would struggle to tell you what they did or said - unless they were the back row for Manchester City in 1985 ?

As for "From whence have you come?" - I suspect a leading question too, but I'm happy to answer if you can expand on what you want to know ?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What's the difference?

Here is the difference;

"greenatic"
VHEMT

Mech

I just despise waste.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

But (genuine question, not being argumentative) what alternative system would you see being used when/if that happens, or indeed to mitigate for the effects ?

If we are agreed that resources are finite, and that an increasing human population tends to consume these resources at a greater rate, then we can conclude that population will be controlled by available resources.

Population can be controlled by disease, famine, war, natural disaster, or by limiting pregnancy (to name just a few). Most every means of limiting population is generally disagreeable. We have very few options that can be considered more agreeable, and within our control.

Originally Posted by Arragonis

[Peak oil] may have happened, it may be happening, it may never happen.

Peak oil is a certainty. All tangible things are finite, and consumption of such tangibles must therefore have a peak rate at which it is consumed.

At some point in history there was "peak horses". A point in which the earth used the most horses for transportation, and has since reduced the use of horses for transportation.

Ideally we would transition away from petroleum fueled vehicles in the same way we transitioned away from horses; a more efficient and cheaper alternative becomes available. Otherwise, we might be going back to horses, or turtle horses

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What's the difference?

There isn't one. Being afraid of being "green" is tantamount to being called a dumbocrat. By Bozo.


My question as quoted (to Frank as it goes) was about his comments relating to economic growth as opposed to PO as a specific issue. This has come up before and has descended into arguments. I am interested in what Frank says - I am happy if he PMs me instead of posting here if that helps.

As for PO - I have no idea, I am neutral. It may have happened, it may be happening, it may never happen. I have "heard" of Yergin, Smil & Roubini from books and articles I have read but I would struggle to tell you what they did or said - unless they were the back row for Manchester City in 1985 ?

As for "From whence have you come?" - I suspect a leading question too, but I'm happy to answer if you can expand on what you want to know ?

Well, if you boys are having an argument via PM's then excuse me from stepping in the door late. As you don't read, then I leave you to it.

"Peak Oil" is an accounting. Nothing more. But nothing less.

Every dollar -- every monetary unit -- has an energy debt. Every single transaction. Doesn't matter if the energy was originally human or fossil fuel. What happens if the predictability, the value, of that transaction changes?

From whence have you come is leading . . stick your neck out, son. Define what you are about.

A broken system isn't fixed by "systematic changes". That's the laughable part: No point in patching the tire when there is no longer a road to run down.

So here's a definition, an acronym to look up: E.R.O.E.I.

Start there and see where it takes you. I have a hunch you can have a fair number of decently written books at your disposal in short order. Then you can have some real fun. Stuck in Scotland, land of my hardheaded ancestors, I know you'll not lack for "debates" should you choose to improve yourself thus. It would all depend on what first catches your attention, your interest.

My apologies for the stridency. Call me whatever names you want, if that helps. The dinner table at our house allowed no prisoners taken. Hard to understand why you'd be asking others what you could easily find out for yourself.

.

[slowmover]

As there is no separation between Peak Oil (as concept, catchall), climate change, the economy, etc; to that end, for the wilfully ignorant, then,

Comics:

What everyones fear is:

John Kinhart, As We Know It

An Introductory Video Series: Richard Heinberg

Part One, Peak Everything

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybRz9...eature=related

Kinhart, again, with what most go through as implications sink in

Rome Didn't Collapse in a Day

Yet further implications; an essay:

Ugo Bardi, Peak Research

Of course none of these are satisfying in the way that a book is. And that one author builds upon another. A few thousand years of Western Civ being flushed since no one will any longer read enough (not enough, at any rate); if one lacks tools, how can one participate as an adult?

So, a review of three. Vanishing Face is worth the effort for the unschooled.

NYRB: James Lovelock, A Great Jump to Disaster

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

.

[Frank Lee]

Good links; I concur.

http://www.startribune.com/world/131954293.html

[mwebb]

so far this thread is nothing but smoke and mirrors , the comments linked above are designed to distract the viewers from what is real.
imho.

consider this ;
your graph does not really show an increase in the price of oil

what it really shows is a
decrease in the value and purchasing power of the dollar
this decrease in value of the dollar is not a "normal" fluctuation in the "market" . and in fact has nothing at all to do with supply and demand of oil .
or anything else , it does not in fact follow an economic model at all .
because the alleged "economic market" fluctuations are skillfully controlled ...


if you wish to learn more, a KISS version, watch what is below

http://www.youtube.com/user/theamericandreamfilm

and if you really want to learn about the subject - watch what is below

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56183936&hl=en

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Peak oil has arrived......??

The Oil Drum | A Brief Economic Explanation of Peak Oil

"For a number of years there has been an arid debate between economists and geologists about Peak Oil. The geologists maintain that Peak Oil (maximal production) is a geological imperative imposed because reserves are finite even if their exact magnitude is not, and cannot be, known.

In contrast many economists maintain prices will resolve any sustained supply shortfalls by providing incentives to develop more expensive sources or substitutes. The more sanguine economists do concede that the adaptation may be slow, uncomfortable and economically disruptive.

The reality, I believe, is that both groups have part of the answer but that Peak Oil is, in fact, a complex but largely an economically driven phenomenon that is caused because the point is reached when: The cost of incremental supply exceeds the price economies can pay without destroying growth at a given point in time. While hard to definitively prove, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that there is an oil price economies cannot afford without severe negative impacts.

The corollary is that if oil prices fall back to and sustain levels that do not inhibit growth, then economic growth will resume, with both recoveries and downturns lagging oil price changes by 1-6 months."

Oil prices and recessions...a NEW recession underway now.....who knew?

Well you know now....




"The conclusion appears to be that:

Unless and until adaptive responses are large and fast enough to constrain the upward trend of oil prices, the primary adaptive response will be periodic economic crashes of a magnitude that depresses oil consumption and oil prices. These have the effect of shifting consumption from incumbent consumers—the advanced economies—to the new consumers in the developing economies.

This is exactly what happened in the last recession when between the start of the recession in January 2007 and its effective end in 1Q 2011 demand rose by 4.3 million b/d in the non-OECD area and fell by 4 million b/d in the OECD area."

[Peter7307]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I think the concept of "peak" whatever could and should be useful as a wake-up call, if the majority were conscious enough to comprehend it.

Frank, Yes I agree with your post but sadly little evidence is appearing on this side of the equator.

Peter.

[Arragonis]

Just for balance an alternative view of growth, wealth and population.

Originally Posted by slowmover

"Peak Oil" is an accounting. Nothing more. But nothing less.

... E.R.O.I.E...

I've read Heinberg - I used to follow his blog when I had the time and I find him a very pursuasive and eloquent presenter. I've also read Simmons' book and his blog until he died. I've even read the slightly unhinged Ruppert and I've spent quite a while reading TOD in the past so I get that part. And I've read the arguments against as well from the likes of Matt Ridley.

My question is this. Currently our economic model is based on the idea of growth, making people richer. If our economic model is going to be based on non-growth then what is this other system ? Is it the steady-state economy model, or something else ?

Again, this isn't a leading question. I am neutral on PO and population - I can see merit and flaws in both sides of the argument - I'm interested in how people who view growth as a problem envisage transition. If you like move on from the idea there is a problem to the methods that could be used to solve it. Or is there no solution and we're all going to end up fighting each other for the last crumbs of growth ?

Originally Posted by slowmover

My apologies for the stridency. Call me whatever names you want, if that helps. The dinner table at our house allowed no prisoners taken. Hard to understand why you'd be asking others what you could easily find out for yourself.

Hopefully I've made it clear I have looked at things I can easily find out, but unless people put their opinions out there its not something I can know. As for dinner table debate, you would be welcome at my table any time - we have good beer too

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If we are agreed that resources are finite, and that an increasing human population tends to consume these resources at a greater rate, then we can conclude that population will be controlled by available resources.

Population can be controlled by disease, famine, war, natural disaster, or by limiting pregnancy (to name just a few). Most every means of limiting population is generally disagreeable. We have very few options that can be considered more agreeable, and within our control.

This is the bit I want to get to know about, are there solutions ?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Peak oil is a certainty...

Its an opinion, and a valid one.

Originally Posted by Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum (Click for Wikipedia link)

My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel.