This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Chris Martenson

It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve

Once a year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) releases its World Energy Outlook (WEO), and it's our tradition here at ChrisMartenson.com to review it.  A lot of articles have already been written on the WEO 2010 report, and I don't wish to tread an already well-worn path, but the subject is just too important to leave relegate to a single week of attention. 

Because some people will only read the first two paragraphs, let me get a couple of conclusions out right up front.  You need to pay close attention to Peak Oil, and you need to begin adjusting, because it has already happened.  The first conclusion is mine; the second belongs to the IEA. 

Okay, it's not quite as simple as that; there are a few complexities involved that require us to dig a bit deeper and to be sure our terms and definitions are clear so that we are talking about the same things.

But if we can simply distinguish between two types of "oil" (you'll see why that term is in quotes in a second), the story becomes much easier to follow.

  • "Conventional oil" is the cheap and easy stuff.  A well is drilled, pipe is inserted and oil comes up out of the ground that can be shipped directly to a refinery.  Whether the oil is "sour" or "sweet" doesn't matter; it's still conventional oil.
  • "Unconventional oil" refers to things like tar sands, ultra-deep-water oil, coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and natural gas liquids.  In other words, oil that is much more difficult and expensive to produce.

The IEA has been producing annual reviews of the world energy situation for a long time and has not mentioned the term "Peak Oil" (as far as I know) until this year's report.  And not only did they mention it, they said that as far as conventional oil goes, it's in the rear view mirror:

Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006, while production of natural gas liquids (NGL) and unconventional oil grows quickly.

WEO 2010 - Executive Summary

I might quibble that the all-time peak remains 2005 in the US Energy Information Agency data set, but the main point here is that the IEA has not only used the words "Peak Oil" (finally!) but they've done so in the past tense, at least with regard to conventional oil. 

The IEA now sees all forms of oil, conventional and unconventional, hitting a high of 99 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2035 (including 3 mbd of 'refinery gains').  Of course, we may wish to take even this tepid estimate of growth in oil supplies with a grain of salt, because in every annual report, like clockwork, the IEA has been ratcheting down its estimate of how much oil we'll have in the future: 

Assuming that this trend will continue, our prediction is that next year the estimate of future oil supplies will be ratcheted down one more notch.  Perhaps by another 6 mbd, to match the difference between the 2009 and 2010 reports? 

It's when we eyeball the graph that shows us the breakdown in petroleum sources by type that a few important details jump out at us: 

First, pay close attention to the legend for the chart.  Starting at the bottom, note that crude oil from "currently producing fields" (dark blue) is already in sharp decline and is expected to decline from a high of 70 mbd in 2006 to ~15 mbd in 2035; a loss of 55 mbd over 25 years, or 2.2 mbd per year.  The next band up (gray) is crude oil from "fields yet to be developed," which we largely know about but have not yet really started producing significantly. 

My only comment here is that these fields cannot overcome the expected rate of loss in the dark blue band below them.  All of the conventional oil that we know about is now past peak.  In order to keep conventional oil flat, we have to move up to the third band (light blue), which goes by the spine tingling name "fields yet to be found" - which will apparently be delivering a very hefty 22 mbd by 2035.  In other words, the IEA is projecting that in 25 years, more oil will be flowing from "fields yet to be found" than from all the fields ever found and put into production by the year 2010.    

Colin Campbell, one of the earliest analysts of peak oil who has decades of oil field experience, is on record as saying that the "fields yet to be developed" category, originally introduced to the world as unidentified Unconventional in 1998, is a "coded message for shortage" and was, off the record, confirmed as such by the IEA. That coded message is getting easier and clearer to receive by the day.  

But back to the main story line.  Even if the final assessment of future oil production isn't notched down even one more tick, we have all the information we need to spot an enormous problem in the global story of growth.  Assuming that we stick with the 99 mbd by 2035 estimate going forward, this represents a growth rate in oil of only around one-half of one percent (0.5%) per year between now and then.    

This means that over the next 25 years, the global economy will have to make do with less than half the rate of growth in oil that it enjoyed over the prior 25 years.  How will the economy grow with less oil available?  What will happen to the valuations of financial assets that explicitly assume that prior rates of growth stretch endlessly into the future? 

To cut to the chase, the admission by the IEA that we will not be achieving past levels of energy growth should be the most gigantic red flag in history, at least to those who might care that their money or other paper-based forms of wealth be worth something in the future.  What if that future growth does not emerge?  What happens when the collateral for a loan goes sour?  The IEA report indicates an enormous set of risks for an over-leveraged world reliant on constant growth.

The bottom lines are these:

  • The IEA now admits that conventional crude oil peaked in 2006.  Permanently.  Any gains from here are due to contributions from unconventional oil and natural gas-to-liquids.
  • Under no scenario envisioned will future growth in fossil fuel supplies be equal prior rates of growth.
  • Energy from here on out is going to be (much) more expensive.

I cannot state this strongly enough:  The WEO 2010 report is an official admission that Peak Oil is not only real, but it's already here.  

Scouring the Globe for Fuel

"Tomorrow’s [economic] expansion was collateral for today’s debt."

~ Colin Campbell

The implications from this report are too important to preserve just
for the enrolled members who support this site's mission, people, and
goals.  We're going to open up most of this report to the general public
because we feel it's the right thing to do.  For those unfamiliar with
my work, the job I do most frequently is a combination of information
scout (I connect dots) and analyst (I dig deep). 

Okay, let's head deeper into the World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2010 report.  Here's my quick summary of the report.  

 By 2035:

  • Between 2008 and 2035, total energy demand grows by 36%, or 1.2%
    per year; far less than the 2% rate of growth seen over the prior 27
    years. (Note:  This comes from the "New Policies Scenario," which is
    the middle scenario of three in the report. We'll discuss this one
    throughout.)
  • Renewables will be contributing very little to the overall energy landscape, just 14% of the total, and this includes hydro.
  • 93% of all the demand increase comes from non OECD countries (mainly China and India).
  • Oil remains the dominant fuel (although diminishing in total percentage).
  • The global economy will grow by an average of 3.2% per annum.
  • It's time to cut demand for oil by raising prices (they recommend ending energy subsidies for fossil fuels as the mechanism).
  • Conventional oil has peaked, and this is a permanent condition. 
    All oil gains from here forwards will come from non-conventional
    sources and gas and coal-to-liquids programs.

There are enormous implications to that series of bullet points, if
one stops to think about them in total.  One glaring difficulty in all
of this is that the IEA notes that China and India are going to consume
nearly every drop of any potential future increases in oil production. 
Yet overall production is only going to grow by a meager 0.5% per year.

So how does the IEA suppose that oil growth can slow down to a paltry
0.5%/year, see China and India increase their consumption massively,
and still have everything balance out?  We all know that China and India
(et al.) have been growing their oil consumption by massive percentages
in the recent past, and there's some evidence that we can expect more
of that behavior in the years to come.

In fact, this was what India's Premier told the world on November 1, 2010:

Premier Manmohan Singh told India's energy firms on Monday to scour
the globe for fuel supplies as he warned the country's demand for fossil
fuels was set to soar 40 percent over the next decade. 

The country of more than 1.1 billion people already imports nearly 80
percent of its crude oil to fuel an economy that is expected to grow
8.5 percent this year and at least nine percent next year.

(Source)

So, yes, it's pretty much expected that China and India, et al., will be increasing their consumption by rates much (much)
higher than 0.5%, which means, logically, that some other countries
will have to consume at negative rates in order for the equation to
balance.

And this is exactly what the IEA has modeled and proposed:

I want to draw your attention to the green circles that I placed on
there.  Yes, you are reading that right.  To balance everything out, the
IEA has modeled the OECD as actually decreasing its consumption of coal and
oil by significant amounts (that's what a negative 'incremental demand'
requires:  a decrease in current consumption).  The difference is made
up from a mix of renewables, biomass, nuclear, and natural gas. 

Never has such a thing happened in the entire industrial history of
the OECD.  Never.  There are no models or examples to follow here.  No
guidance is offered to suggest how such a monumental feat will be
accomplished, beyond tossing a few more bucks at renewables, as if money
alone could correct for vast differences in energy quantity and
quality. 

To suggest that the next 25 years for the OECD will be characterized
by a significant reduction in the use of the two primary industrial
fuels is an astonishing claim, and so it deserves to be carefully
examined.  But, speaking bluntly, this is not going to happen.

Any suggestion that the OECD is going to reduce its use of
coal for electricity and oil for liquid fuels has to be accompanied by
evidence of massive programs of investment towards energy transitioning
that, truth be told, have to have been started a decade or more before
the arrival of Peak Oil.  Hinting that it might possibly be a good idea
to move these renewable dreams to the drawing board after the advent of Peak Oil is akin to playing tunes on a sinking ship; at best, you are providing a captivating diversion.

Regardless, no such programs operating at appropriate scale are even remotely in sight.

A point that I try to make clear in my upcoming book
(due out in March 2011 from Wiley) is that such an energy transition
would be evident by such things as the trillions of dollars being
dedicated to it, by eminent domain actions to secure new land for
natural gas pipelines, and by vehicles that could run on electricity or
natural gas being churned out by the millions.  While we can debate
whether we might get there someday, there can be no doubt that we are
not there today.

So if one is a card-carrying member of the mainstream media, what
does one do with such a major event as the WEO 2010 report?  In the case
of the New York Times, the answer is to run a completely schizophrenic
pair of articles, but bury the supportive one deep in the "blogs"
section while placing the one that completely ignores the WEO 2010
report prominently in the business section.

The first of these two articles, separated by only a day
and centering firmly on the IEA report, is titled "Is ‘Peak Oil’ Behind
Us?" to which the article correctly answers "Yes":

Is ‘Peak Oil’ Behind Us?

Peak oil is not just here — it’s behind us already

That’s the conclusion of the International Energy Agency, the
Paris-based organization that provides energy analysis to 28
industrialized nations. According to a projection in the agency’s
latest annual report, released last week, production of conventional
crude oil — the black liquid stuff that rigs pump out of the ground —
probably topped out for good in 2006, at about 70 million barrels a day.
Production from currently producing oil fields will drop sharply in
coming decades, the report suggests.

That's pretty accurate.  You'd think that such a stunning admission
by the preeminent body responsible for preparing such reports for the
OECD would have sparked a fury of investigation and maybe even
self-investigation by the New York Times, which through the years has
pooh-poohed the entire idea of Peak Oil rather religiously.  But that
didn't happen.

The second article is entitled "There Will Be Fuel" and is chock full
of comforting anecdotes and quotes from oil industry executives: 

There Will Be Fuel

Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil
fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and
Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North
America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States
has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a
generation.

“The estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to
increase,” said William M. Colton, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for
corporate strategic planning. “There’s enough oil to supply the world’s needs as far as anyone can see.”

Somebody get that man a pair of glasses (!)

Seriously, any country or corporation that cannot foresee the end of
cheap and abundant oil is being run by dangerous people.  To suggest
that even the most optimistic assessment of oil, which has it peaking in
2030, is too far away to begin planning for today is just silly. 
Really, now...responsible planners considering major capital projects
with multi-decade life spans (which can be 30 years or more for many
things) should just ignore energy?    That's the message here? 
Goodness, gracious. 

In fact, there are so many problems with "There Will Be Fuel" that I
hardly know where to turn to next.  I suppose we could note that the
article quoted "100 years of natural gas" left in the US without
mentioning the all-important phrase "at current rates of consumption." 
To those who are familiar with exponential processes, and who know that
energy consumption has been increasing exponentially for decades, such
an oversight is an enormous red flag.  It betrays either ignorance or
deception on somebody's part (perhaps the editor?), and neither are
acceptable at this stage of the energy debate.  Once we increase
consumption at reasonable and prior rates, that 100 years can rapidly
shrink to mere decades in a hurry.

What's the difference between "100 years of gas" and "maybe a couple of decades"?  Night and day.

Next, we might note that the article goes out of its way to make the
case that "estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to
increase," while somehow avoiding the essential point that it's not the amounts that matter, but the rates at which the oil can be coaxed to flow out of the ground.  Peak Oil is, has been, and always will be about flow rates, not amounts.

For example, if the very center of the earth were entirely filled
with oil, but we could only get to it through a single, very thin tube
(limiting how fast we could pull the oil out), it wouldn't really matter
how much was there - a hundred trillion barrels could be there -
because how much we could do with it would be limited by the rate of
extraction.  Exponential economic growth requires increases in fuel
consumption.  It always has and it always will, until and unless a brand
new model of economics is developed.

Again, the lack of awareness of this basic concept of the difference between rates and amounts leaves the New York Times piece very much in doubt. 

I could go on, but it's not all that helpful to once again catch the
New York Times playing fast and loose with the facts in order to advance
an agenda; for now, let's just observe that Peak Oil refers to a
condition where the rate of extraction cannot be increased.  If
it were about amounts, then I suppose we would call it "Peak Reserves,"
but it's not, and for a reason:  We care about the flow rates.

It is on this matter of flow rates that the IEA report was especially jarring and succinct:  Peak Oil has happened.

At this point, it may be good to remind ourselves that last year an
IEA whistleblower said that the organization had willfully underplayed
looming shortages due to political pressures from the US.

Please read the following very carefully; it represents very
important context for what we are about to discuss next.  (I'm quoting
at length because it's all essential): 

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official
estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the
International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately
underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in
encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing
oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the
organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to
be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other
governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change
policies.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the
global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil
supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it
was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year,"
said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of
reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but
even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA
knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies
at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears
that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were
brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy
because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he
added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling
to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was
"imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was
not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already]
entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad,"
he added.

(Source)

The idea expressed above is simple enough:  The oil data has been
fudged to the upside by the IEA.  Pressure has allegedly been applied
upon the IEA to paint a rosier picture than a strict interpretation of
the data would warrant.  To speculate, the reason why is that there are a
host of interlocking vested interests in the financial but especially
political spheres that would find the public recognition of Peak Oil to
be disruptive and therefore unwelcome. 

This is just another example of Fuzzy Numbers,
but the consequences of fibbing to ourselves about oil are far more
dire than when we lie about employment.  If it weren't so serious, it
would be just another somewhat regrettable obfuscation of reality
created to serve narrow and temporal political purposes.

Note: There is a well-recorded history, going back at
least 13 years, of the IEA being fully aware of Peak Oil but bowing to
political pressure to soften the message.  Read paragraphs 4 & 5 of
this piece by Colin Campbell for some more essential background.

Conclusion

Here's where we are:

  • The IEA has known about looming Peak Oil issues for more than a
    decade and is only now explicitly recognizing the idea in their public
    documents.
  • People inside and outside of the IEA say that the organization
    has downplayed both the timing and potential severity of Peak Oil.
  • Peak Conventional Oil has already happened.
  • Any possible growth in future oil that the IEA can envision --
    and we might suspect that even this is fudged to the upside and will
    retreat in subsequent reports -- is going to be almost entirely eaten up
    by China and India.

What this means is very, very simple.  There will be an energy crisis
in the near future that will make anything we've experienced so far
seem like a pleasant memory. 

The very best personal investments you can make at this stage will
involve increasing your energy resilience.  Make your house require less
heating and cooling, use the sun wherever and whenever possible, and
increase your personal storage of the fuels you use (if and when
possible).

The potential knock-on effects of less energy to the complex system
known as our economy are unpredictable in their exact details and
timing, but are thoroughly knowable via their broad, topographical
outlines.  The economy will become simpler and less ordered.

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:45 | 751089 DocLogo
DocLogo's picture

peak cheap oil is very much a reality.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:49 | 751099 goldmiddelfinger
goldmiddelfinger's picture

Abiotic oil. Listen, do you really think there were THAT many dinosaurs?

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:14 | 751137 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

Dinosaurs...

Bahaha....

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:01 | 751269 gwar5
gwar5's picture

I'm with you on abiotic oil.

It needs to be deeply explored. Pun intended.

The Russians are doing it and they're exporters.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 03:53 | 751802 Pondmaster
Pondmaster's picture

Where did shale gas come from ? US will be major exporters within 2-3 years . Russians always have a tendency to boast and lie alot . i.e. Lunar program , i.e. Invention of short wave , invention of light bulb  . Historically daft people .

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:07 | 751281 Bob
Bob's picture

Do you really believe anyone except the lunatic fringe has ever posited that oil is primarily a product of dinosaurs?

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:30 | 751334 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Not dinosaurs, but plant life and carbon life forms that inhabit the ocean, from the age when the land was covered with plants, and the ocean teamed with life.  It died and was composted in sedimentary rock and under pressure became petroleum.  Only fuck- tard politicos play the dinosaur game.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:36 | 751348 Thanatos
Thanatos's picture

I liked the concept of "Dino-Squeezin's" and I'm stickin with it despite all FACTS to the contrary!

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:46 | 751525 Rotwang
Rotwang's picture

And after a while, enormous concentrations of this squeezed biota got mangled and concentrated in extremely rich pockets for later discovery. :)

 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:12 | 751287 Blindweb
Blindweb's picture

and a billion years of plants.  Carbon is carbon.

 

Considering the consequences of peak oil, if it is true, you would think the abiotic pushers would have beyond a doubt proof.  Basic Risk management here.  The consequences of peak oil are so severe you better be damn sure it's a myth. 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:47 | 751378 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Did you fucking READ the article?

Do it again, and this time for comprehension.

Right there, as I have said FIFTY TIMES, it does NOT MATTER WHERE OIL COMES FROM.

RESERVES DO NOT MATTER.  Production rates are ALL that matter

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:03 | 751423 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

I can appreciate your passion on the subject.  It is obvious you have a grasp of the facts where many do not.  People like Robo dismiss peak oil becasue of two days price action.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:34 | 751494 rocker
rocker's picture

Right on Finger

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:51 | 752048 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

Right on. I might argue that Production and Consumption rates are ALL that matter. But I would not argue with the Finger. I'd argue with Miles he seems clueless enough.

Also may I add if we really want to add to reserves there is always India. I bet you could get a barrel of crude from about 100 Indians...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:37 | 751641 Dirtt
Dirtt's picture

BINGO!

Another manufactured crisis.  If the BP Deepwater catastrophe happened in 2008 OIL would have traded at $300 per barrel.  It barely mustered $90

Take your Peak Oil theory and shove it.  Manufactured Peak Production is an entirely different subject.

Hey! Let's put ocean-based windmills in the paths of hurricanes. YEAH!! That's the ticket.  And let's give non-documented LA housekkeepers a $50K cash out on a East LA track slum.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:50 | 752042 Jessica6
Jessica6's picture

And yet the oilpatch in Alberta has seen layoffs the past couple of years. There's no way with $80 oil they're not profitable right now.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:48 | 751379 crazynutjob
crazynutjob's picture

Abiotic oil? Fantastic. So the amount of oil left will not go to zero. However, given that we appear to be draining our oil fields, the fact is that whatever abiotic process produces oil, it isn't doing it fast enough. And we aren't discovering more of it in easy enough locations to continue growing our oil consumption. Interestingly, nothing in the above article was based on the assumption that oil comes from dinosaurs. It is strictly based on exploration, consumption, and production.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:07 | 751429 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Abiotic oil implies that there will be more oil at ever deeper stratums, not that the oil will be replaced as fast or faster than we are using it (currently).

What people don't seem to understand is that even if peak oil IS fact, then all that means is that we will slowly run out of oil.  It will get progressively more expensive until a cheaper substitute is found.  That substitute is highly unlikely to be more than twice as expensive as oil.

Given that, why all the fearmongering?  All it does is give big government a free pass when it comes to regulating oil production and our economy.

We're not all going to die next Thursday when oil production peaks.  At worst, we have to live a more basic lifestyle, which we are going to have to do ANYWAYS due to the chickens coming home to roost.  Why must we work ourselves into a frenzy over peak oil?

Also, a homework assignment for anyone who beleives in peak oil, read this: http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/10/its-flow-stupid.html

Answer the following question:  if oil production in a few countries is subsidized by payment by secret payment of gold, and those countries which receive said subsidy have yet to reach peak oil production, what does that tell you?

What it tells me is that said subsidy has allowed the Saudis to underbid everyone else on oil, and that the decline in oil production in countries like the US is a direct result of their inability to compete.  As such, oil production would not stop, but rather would act like a Hubbert peak, because there is not as much effort being directed toward production as there should be in a free market.

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:24 | 751467 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

"What people don't seem to understand is that even if peak oil IS fact, then all that means is that we will slowly run out of oil.  It will get progressively more expensive until a cheaper substitute is found.  That substitute is highly unlikely to be more than twice as expensive as oil." 

That is the trick.  Per the chart, crude production is about 60mb/d.  BOE energy is about 1.7Mwatts (wiki article).  Quick math, if production drops off 10 mb/d per the chart above, that means the short fall is 10E6*1.7Mwatts= 17terawatts of power shortfall.  Who is going to generate 17terawatts?  Three Gorges Hydro produces 16Gwatts?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:49 | 751533 tmosley
tmosley's picture

1.7Mwatt*hours, not megawatts.  Power and energy are different.  

To generate 17 terwatt hours per year, you would need about 1/8th of a 3 gorges dam.  That is easily doable.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:01 | 751543 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

I understand power/energy difference.  the numbers are per DAY.  The shortfall will be 17terrawatts per day due to 10mb/d lack of production (17Tw/24hours)=.708 TWh due to oil.  Three Gorges produced 80TWh in 2009.  Thats an average of .3 TWh per day at 3 Gorges.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:46 | 751653 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you understand the difference, then please use the appropriate units.  This subject is difficult enough with a dozen foul mouthed children running around screaming about the end of the world next Thursday for me to write a dissertation on the problems with your math.

that said, let's dig in.  Assuming a 10,000,000 barrel/day reduction in production, 1.7 MW*hrs/barrel, and 1 day in 24 hours, you get 708,333 megawatts, or 708 gigawatts, which is about 31 Three Gorges dams, spread across the globe.  That means about 7 in the US, and that is without any reduction in consumption, which is coming anyways due to economics.

This is a tall, but fillable order.  Of course, it would be filled a lot quicker if we didn't have a Byzantine system of taxes, regulations, and subsidies in this country.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:50 | 752216 Almost Solvent
Almost Solvent's picture

As long as BRIC is not adding to the global demand, then I agree the decent can be controlled.

If BRIC starts running up demand at a rate similar to the last 10 years over the next 10 years, then we are in for a huge fight to keep the ships and trucks rolling to WalMart.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:04 | 752264 trav7777
trav7777's picture

HAHAHAHAHA...what rivers do you propose to dam to generate that type of power?

I mean, I am ALL EARS for this; this ought to be good. Only just 7 copies here of the largest dam ever constructed. Should be NO PROBLEMO. And 24 elsewhere. On WHAT rivers?

Then, please account for the next 10mbpd of lost production.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 13:41 | 752775 tmosley
tmosley's picture

No-one said it all had to come from hydroelectric.  What is your malfunction?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:28 | 751481 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

What people don't seem to understand is that even if peak oil IS fact, then all that means is that we will slowly run out of oil.  It will get progressively more expensive until a cheaper substitute is found.  That substitute is highly unlikely to be more than twice as expensive as oil.

 

You are the definition of a moron and a fine example of why expectant mothers should not consume alcohol...

   

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:45 | 751522 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You are the definition of a person who who should make an argument instead of simply insulting someone whom they disagree with.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:16 | 751691 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

Make an argument you say?

I do not know how many times, and in how many ways others have attempted to explain the fundamentals of energy to you so why the fuck should we bother now.

ZH obviously needs the equivelent of MS paint in the comment tool bar so we can draw you science retards a picture. 

But hey, one more time couldn't hurt right so here it goes, in a nutshell...

NET ENERGY GAINS!!!

Is that an adequate argument for you? 

Or...

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS!!!

If not, here are some "primer" links to CM's excellent crash course vids and that other quick source, wikipedia...

Part 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNgNyiXPLk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain

Enjoy...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:46 | 751738 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I see, so your argument is that entropy increases, therefore we will all die, probably next Thursday.  This is not a good argument, I'm sad to tell you.  The jist of this argument is that certain people on this board have been falsely claiming that oil production has already peaked in numerous countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, something that I have shown from primary sources to be FALSE.  Further arguments are purely speculative, much like those by similar Malthusians from 1909 that claimed oil would run out in 1939.  They were obviously proven wrong, and have made the EXCT same claim others here are making.  They have taken trends and extrapolated them to infinite, which is just stupid.  This shows zero understanding of how markets work.

FYI, currently available sources of energy: 

Coal

Natural gas

Uranium

Thorium

Geothermal

Hydroelectric

Wind

Photovoltaic

These are alternatives that we know of now.  There are other sources of energy that may become useful in the future with increasing technology.  Fusion is the old stand-by.  Another out there one is information, which can be used to pump heat via a Maxwell's demon.  Who are you to say what the future holds?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:17 | 751969 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The survivalist framework is a useless framework because it always finishes with a win. Always.

Either one person at least survives, and therefore it is a win. Either nobody survives and this is a win too because issues are attached to people. No more people, no more issues.

Peak oil is presented in the survival framework (id est it is about humanity survival, all people are going to die) by people who refuse to discuss peak oil issue.

In all human history, every new successful energy source has outcompeted the previous one. Not a single one came as a substitution because the previous one was on the depletion side. They all supercede the previous because they were more efficient.

All the quoted energy sources already exist and can compete with oil. The result is known: oil wins. Oil still wins and through depletion, the switch will be made toward inferior energy sources.

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:52 | 751537 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Damn straight...as if skyrocketing petrol prices wouldn't cripple the economy without breaking a sweat.

We couldn't even handle $5/gallon gas in the summer of '08 and you tweedles think that a carbon tax will usher in economic armageddon; it's the same fucking problem only with an order of magnitude higher severity if the price of oil goes parabolic, nimrods.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:01 | 751549 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I never said we wouldn't break a sweat.  I said it wouldn't be the end of the world.  Do YOU think it will be the end of the world?  You don't think there is any source of energy other than oil?  That we can't produce the oil or equivalent compact energy source for car travel?  That we can't produce the oil needed for plastics manufacture from agricultural sources?  Do you really think that?

Or do you just not like me, and you let that color your thinking?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:48 | 751657 snowball777
snowball777's picture

I'm all for replacing oil. It's poison, hard to get at (these days anyway), and gives people I actually do hate political leverage without which they'd be on the dustbin of history.

But...

How long do the alternatives take to come online? (hint: measured in decades)

We'd need to make millions of turbines and billions of PV arrays to go WWS at current consumption.

 

How much energy will those alternatives need to displace? (hint: measure in terawatts)

12Tw of WWS power to displace 17Tw of conventional.

 

How many of the alternative sources are nowhere near the load demand?

Local PV helps if you live where it's sunny (like me) and you're good if you live off the Cape and want to use wind, but what if you live in Timbuktu?

And then there's the materials problem...all those rare earths the ChiComs are sitting on.

 

I have great faith that we can use something other than oil. I have very little faith that we will do what is necessary to allow those plans to come to fruition because of entrenched interests and people who are simply unwilling to see what is necessary for long-term survival.

It won't take much of an "interruption in service" for the world, as we know and love it, to come to an abrupt and painful intermission, if not end.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:25 | 751714 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Demolish the government that preserves them, and their entrenchments will fall away as though they were never there.

Then and only then can real economic calculations begin, including on the subject of energy.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:03 | 751556 trav7777
trav7777's picture

All the nations in OPEC except Iraq and MAYBE KSA have already peaked, doofus.

JFC, can you get a fact straight.

"IF" peak is true?  If peak is NOT true, moron, oil production will continue to grow FOREVER.  Does that sound plausible to you?

As far as "deep" oil goes, you expose your total ignorance when you cannot IMMEDIATELY cite, as I can, the incredibly REDUCED ratio of flow/URR of deepwater reserves versus old conventionals fields.

I mean, hell, it's in the goddamned world oil outlook.  I guess you prefer the abuse huh?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:00 | 751669 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Just accept the premise when it is given to you, and follow the argument from there.  Since you failed to do that, you have failed to use your mind, have failed to understand the problem, and have failed to produce any form of solution.  Congratulations, you are a petulant (that word means "easily annoyed", a disclaimer that I don't think you can deny) person.

The reason that peak oil might not happen is that we transfer to a new technology, rendering said peak as moot as peak firewood, or peak whale oil (both of which have been screamed about by proto Malthusians for centuries or millennia).

If you can cite it, do so.  Instead, you seem to feel the need to simply continue insulting someone who is attempting to have an intelligent conversation with you.  If you talked to people in person in this manner, you'd get your ass kicked every time, and would probably end up in jail.  Try using the civility you use when you are talking to a real human being.

No, I don't like the abuse.  I just can't stand it when people run around screaming the world is going to end next Thursday while totally ignoring the much larger much more pressing problem of government taking over our lives.  We agree on so much, yet you feel the need to call me an idiot because I disagree with you on this single issue which is NOT MATERIAL to the current situation.  Call me back in two years and we can see if the world has fallen apart due to economic collapse brought on by government control, or due to economic collapse brought on by peak oil.

The energy problem can be solved through reduced consumption until we find a new source of power.  No government intervention required.  Consumption does not follow a straight line until everything is gone, as your ravings seem to suggest.  And neither does production.  If that were the case, oil would have peaked in 1925, and been gone in 1939, and the US would have starved by 1950, and humanity would have been extinct by 1970, because apparently in the mind of the Malthusian, people just reproduce to the maximum extent possible until they all starve to death, something that simply does not have precedent in history.

*sigh*

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:19 | 752312 trav7777
trav7777's picture

sigh...even if we transition to fusion power, Peak will still happen in oil.

Peak is defined as the production maximum for all time.

Look; if you cannot grasp the basic definitions of the issues, don't speak to me about them.  You are all over this thread with magical thinking, the notion of 31 Three Gorges Dams needing to be built every time we lose 10mbpd in production capacity, which is an absurd proposition, utterly absurd.

It has taken years to build ONE of those.  WTF are we going to do, build 31 of these dams every 5 years?  There aren't enough rivers in the world to meet the substitution for oil, not even close.

As for the world oil outlook, it's available on the web, as are credible production figures for KSA.  I would recommend against using EIA as a reference as they are US Gov't statistics.

Thu, 11/25/2010 - 07:44 | 754402 kiwidor
kiwidor's picture

 I thought I'd dabble in some magical thinking just for sake of being irrational.

So out came the pendulum;

here is what it revealed:

* Peak Oil production occured in 1978

* We have about 20 to 30 years of 'normality' before 'the system' falls to bits.

* big population reduction over next 30 years. (potentially 5 to 6 billion)

* rapid decentralisation is required to survive.

* there is no long emergency, only a short one.  OOPS

Even magical-thinking-mosely can't get it right.  a simple divinatory process yields the same results as a sensible analysis.  OOPS.

[and it saved me a lot of reading]

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:53 | 752441 donmindme
donmindme's picture

tm has a point here. I lived in Asia. Gasoline is extremely expensive there, relative to the average peon's salary. People simply adapt by driving tiny little cars. 40mpg is easy. 60mpg on the freeway.  

People will adapt in America as well. Change is coming alright. Sorry. No hope.

The first huddle that I see, suburb Americans must lose weight first otherwise those tiny cars will probably burn its transmission in 1 day.

btw trav finger.. love your posts.  

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:13 | 751692 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Also, please post your sources on the oil production figures.  This site says that Saudi oil production was up yoy last year, though it doesn't give figures before 2008: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Saudi_Arabia/Oil.html

And this site has spreadsheets, which combined with the above data, fail to show a real production peak, but rather a noisy plateau, with the last years 11 million barrels per day being at the high end of the noise: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilproduction.html

So maybe this isn't as clear an issue as you seem to think?  Man up and post your sources.  Right now, it's looking a lot more like you are talking out of your ass.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:22 | 751707 tmosley
tmosley's picture

It's funny, the closer I look at these figures, the less it looks like ANY of these fucking countries has peaked!

Qatar: 2005: 1.1mbbl/day, 2006, 1.1mbbl/day, 2007, 1.1mbbl/day, 2009, 1.2mbbl/day

UAE: 2005: 2.8mbbl/day, 2006, 2.9mbbl/day, 2007, 2.95mbbl/day, 2009, 3.0mbbl/day

I have got to get to bed, but you sure do look like a fucking liar at this point, boy.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:24 | 752326 trav7777
trav7777's picture

you should be careful of the data you reference.  If you're going to take rosy figures, use the USGS, just a piece of advice.

I should have said only KSA and UAE have any slack capacity, but the incremental growth of production in nations other than UAE is what a peak looks like.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:43 | 753011 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That's past data.  Unless you think they are all lying about everything and yet the world is able to continue.

You have to get past the peak to see it.  It is clear that we are not past it yet, despite your continuous table pounding claiming that we are.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 04:14 | 751811 chrisina
chrisina's picture

What people don't seem to understand is that even if peak oil IS fact, then all that means is that we will slowly run out of oil.  It will get progressively more expensive until a cheaper substitute is found.  That substitute is highly unlikely to be more than twice as expensive as oil.

How do you know a cheaper substitute will be found? Sorry but assuming something with zero evidence to support it is akin to religious thinking.

So where's the evidence?

Also, if a cheaper substitute is found, it seems obvious it won't be twice as expensive. 

(Hint : cheaper means less expensive)

 

Your dogmatic thinking is equivallent to saying : 

I assume everything will be fine, therefore, everything will be fine.


Wed, 11/24/2010 - 13:44 | 752782 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Cheaper than the new higher price, Chrisina.

Please read arguments and understand them before replying.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:51 | 751391 RafterManFMJ
RafterManFMJ's picture

Yup read The Deep Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. Great read, but just one point from it - how is it they are finding evidence of hydrocarbons on other planets, and their moons? Just how many Dinosaurs and weeds were on Titan?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:47 | 751529 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

What is the point arguing about where oil comes from when the important fact is falling production?  If you are looking for a Phd thesis subject, great.  But in the real world who cares? Oil could be a result of god's diahrria for all I care.  The important point is production is falling.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:05 | 751563 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Titan has exafeet worth of NG.

Just may as well say Titan's reserves, as it's almost the size of earth, are "limitless" for all intents and purposes.

Now, class, what would be the expected PRODUCTION rate for Titan's NG reserves?

A. 0

B. 0

C. 0

D. something other than zero (aka, I'm a fucking idiot).

Answer _______

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:11 | 751578 trav7777
trav7777's picture

dld dupe

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:50 | 751534 kinetik
kinetik's picture

Abiotic oil is a fallacy.  It requires the same belief system as D&D or Christianity.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:56 | 751540 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Umm....most folks who played D&D could separate the role playing from reality...not so much the kooky vampire cult.

It is a mind-numbingly simple physics problem: peak oil fits with the conservation of energy and "abiotic oil" does not.

From what, if not 'biotic' materials, would this magical oil be generated? God's septic tank?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 08:36 | 751930 Baron Robber
Baron Robber's picture

No none at all since Sara Palin and Glen Beck told me those diosaur bones were planted by atheist scientists

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:11 | 751962 tallystick
tallystick's picture

I challenge one person who junked abiotic oil to explain where the fuck helium comes from. I'm guessing most of you are unaware of the connection.  You might be surprised.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:40 | 753918 Biosci
Biosci's picture

When a hydrogen and another hydrogen love each other very much...

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:46 | 751372 trav7777
trav7777's picture

There is no such thing as peak "cheap" oil.

There is only peak oil.

I have been arguing with people over IEA for half a decade, laughing at their 135mbpd number.  Even this chart showing fields not yet discovered...what's that, 4 or 5 Ghawars?  We haven't found a field capable of producing 1mbpd in...shit...10, 15, 20 years?  500kbpd finds now are big whales

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:07 | 752099 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

Hey Trav, where do you apply all of your oil knowledge? If you don't mind me asking. In the futures pit? Or in the industry? Just curious.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:28 | 752331 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Where do I apply it?  In arguments such as this.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:45 | 753018 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That is the worst thing I have read in months.

You must not have any real conviction in your beliefs, otherwise you would be setting out to make money off of all of us "morons".

Money speaks of competence, in the end.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 19:03 | 753724 Biosci
Biosci's picture

HAHAHAHA!  Good one.  On a blog that spends more than half its time ripping the very rich banker class, that is a priceless statement.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 19:45 | 753790 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

Oops, you got served homie, again.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 20:49 | 753863 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

"Money speaks of competence, in the end." (oh pleassseeee......)

 I concur with your own conclusion of your intellectual abilities, you truly are a MORON!!!!

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:12 | 751389 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, and in 1909, they said we'd be out by 1939.  Edit: forgot to post the story: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16415562/1909-July-19-Titusville-Herald-Titusv...

That's the thing about doomsaying predictions--by the time you get to the predicted time period, everyone has forgotten that you made that prediction, so you just push it out another thirty years (or if you are smart, you keep it perpetually thirty years away), wash and repeat.

If we run out of oil, we will convert coal to oil.  We have enough coal to last at least 300 years.  End. Of. Fucking. Story.

You peak oilers had best propose a solution other than "carbon tax" or other big government solutions if you ever want to be taken seriously.  No-one is going to abandon modern life based on your predictions, all of which have proven false in the past.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:55 | 751538 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

Basically the cause of this whole financial crisis has nothing to do with fraud. The fraud could have been perpetuated indefinitely if oil were to remain below 35/bbl which is roughly the range American infrastructure was built up on.

The costs of oil are simply embedded in everything, you probably already knew that.

However, there is no ability to chase price beyond a certain point. It would appear that price is $90. It was $147 in 2008. Without consumbers choosing or able to access ever greater amounts of credit to fund their spending habits, the margins of commerce are essentially being squeezed to the points of no return.

Did you see how many places boarded up the windows at the last oil spike? Never to return.

At a certain point business no longer chases higher input costs. They simply shut the doors. Employees without jobs don't bid up those goods or the oil with with to produce and transport them. In the end higher prices are deflationary.

Basically QE2 was the nail in the coffin of this reflation attempt. From here oil could easily plunge below $20/bbl. In fact, I'm betting on it. Heavily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:05 | 751562 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Price oil in gold instead of dollars, and oil is cheaper today than it was back then.  Why do you think that is?

I'm afraid it is all fraud, and it all originates with the Federal Reserve.

Good luck with your bets.  Sadly for you, fiat currency has never once deflated in the history of mankind on any sort of sustained basis.  Only gold has.  If you made your bet on oil in terms of gold, you would have already been proven correct.

That is the problem with deflationists.  They think deflation in terms of dollars.  That simply isn't going to happen, and never has.  Deflation only occurs in terms of gold.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:14 | 751589 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

No, it doesn't originate with the Fed. It originated many thousands of years ago and you don't have the slightest clue as to what it is because you're pretty much a moronic army of one.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:27 | 751612 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Care to expound on that?  You have the brief beginnings of an argument there, but you failed to seal the deal, and instead used a childish insult.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:15 | 752131 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

You got served homie.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:22 | 751980 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Price oil in gold instead of dollars, and oil is cheaper today than it was back then.

 

Absolutely right and an evidence that the oil price is rigged in favour of big consumers who want to consume as much as possible of oil because any potential concurrent can rise and give them a challenge.

The whole financial system, the credit based economy is fully oriented to achieve this objective: depleting resources so that others can not benefit from them.

In this regard, the FED is a gift to the US as it is the institution that allows the scheme to go on.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:00 | 751548 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Oh how dare they actually extrapolate from the methods and data available to them in 1909.

Nice apples and oranges, TM.

300 years?

Oohh...that's almost meaningful...except for the part about the increasing rates of consumption and the fundamental limits on how much coal you can convert to oil in a given span of time with a given input of energy that comes from...?

Shale shilling schmuck.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:16 | 751590 tmosley
tmosley's picture

How dare WE extrapolate with the methods and data we have available to us today?  Don't we know that knowledge and technology tend to increase over time?  The article merely illustrates the dangers inherent in failing to account for new technologies and future developments, and instead simply extrapolating straight line or exponential trends.

The point is that any Malthusian argument is always going to be wrong when it is applied to humans, because humans are able to overcome fundamental limitations on resources with technology.  If we tried to run our current level of civilization on firewood, we would need a hundred planets worth of firewood.  But we don't really use firewood for fuel anymore, do we?

And why must people assume that exponential trends continue in perpetuity?  This is a fallacy that has been disproven again and Again and AGAIN.  You see, we use this little thing called a PRICING MECHANISM to prevent overconsumption of rare resources.  The problem is that we have these things called governments that come in and disrupt pricing mechanisms for their own personal and temporary gain.  This tends to lead to overconsumption and sudden drop offs in supply when it turns out we don't have all the stuff we thought we had.  This happened during the housing bubble.  We thought we had, as a society, saved enough capital (timber, drywall, electricity, food for workers, etc) to sustain a huge building project due to price manipulation by the government by way of easy money.  Once the market realized that these projects were not sustainable, they allocated the resources away from them.  This always happens, and when allowed to happen on its own, it is a quick and fairly painless process (see the Depression of 1920--the excesses of WWI brought it on, but lack of interference allowed it to dissipate completely within a year).

I never said a damn word about shale.  Not once in my life, I believe.  Certainly not on this website.  

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:55 | 751668 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Read my reply above for discussion of the "tech will save us" meme.  It's all well and good to be positive about human potential, but you can't bank on the timing of those great leaps forward.

I only chose 'shale' for the alliteration...but you do sound like a petrol industry apologist.

You might consider that the Great Depression was borne from kicking the 1920 one down the road (with some liquid oxygen thrown on the fire by FIRE sector fraud).

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:29 | 751718 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I don't care one whit about the oil industry.  I want free markets so we can have real economic calculations to determine the best path forward.  Currently, it is impossible due to Byzantine rules of taxes, regulation, and subsidies, most certainly including the petrochemical business.  Hell, in a story I posted somewhere on this page (from FOFOA), there is evidence that oil from Saudi Arabia is being subsidized with gold payments, a bonus that has made production elsewhere unprofitable.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:13 | 751586 trav7777
trav7777's picture

we don't have anywhere NEAR enough coal to last 300 years.

We have at MOST 70 at CURRENT consumption rates, with optimistic recoverable reserves projections.

If we converted to coal, that would run out far faster and if we tried to GROW consumption AND convert, we wouldn't last 10 years.

Listen, dude, just SHUT THE FUCK UP already.  You are an ignoramus who has no clue of what he speaks.  Bartlett was right when he talked about people like you.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:25 | 751606 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You know, when you tell some one to shut the fuck up, you really ought to provide a source.  I never told you to shut the fuck up, though I have suggested you take your pompous ass elsewhere.

You really think that the usage is just going to continue to grow at an exponential rate?  Why?  Because you said?  Because someone drew a line on a chart, and projected past growth out forever into the future?  THAT IS STUPID.  Growth will level off as the coal gets harder to get at.  No-one said we need to grow forever.

In any event, 56 years (the worst case scenario, which assumes that the US, China, and Europe continues to grow at the average rate over the 90's and 2000's, an asinine assumption) is perfectly sufficient for the development of new fuel sources.  The 300 years that would be left at a lower basis is certainly enough.

So yeah, why don't you take your "super genius" act and get the fuck out.  If you want to compare e-penises, you can stare in shocked awe and disbelief at my IQ, which comes in at 161.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:57 | 751670 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Yes, exponential: because people aren't going to stop fucking or driving any time soon.

We would need to build 13,000 new coal plants to keep pace with our energy demand through 2030.

Even if we could, would you really want to?!

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:30 | 751720 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Snowball, meet Japan and Europe, Japan and Europe, Snowball.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:12 | 751964 snowball777
snowball777's picture

TM, meet India and China, India and China, TMosley.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:49 | 753033 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You think they are going to expand forever?  In the face of ever growing energy costs?

Come off it.  You know I'm right.  The trends are all clear as day.  As societies modernize, birth rates drop off.  This is a well known trend that has been observed worldwide.  This is a moderating force.  Malthusians never pay attention to moderating forces, and instead extrapolate exponential growth to infinite.  This is the downfall of their thinking, and is exactly why they are proven wrong over, and over, and over again.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 03:04 | 751757 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

my IQ, which comes in at 161...

Actually, Dr. Spallholz told me you were the "least promising" one in the building. 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:38 | 752377 cosmictrainwreck
cosmictrainwreck's picture

you got to hand it to the guy.....I wouldn't have the balls to publish my IQ (even if I knew what it was - which i don't) Curious why he knows his

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 13:51 | 752820 tmosley
tmosley's picture

It was tested in school because I exhibited weird mental abilities, like being able to solve complex math problems in my head.  Regular teachers couldn't deal with it, and I was extremely bored with regular work.  Those tests allowed me to move to a faster moving curriculum.

In reality, IQ is worthless.  Education and experience are the only things that really matter.  I was simply attempting to lay to rest the "tmosley is a moron" fallacy these people keep bringing up.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 13:56 | 752840 tmosley
tmosley's picture

I'm not going to talk about interpersonal affairs within our laboratory, but suffice it to say that he has no sway in this lab anymore after a major falling out with other members of this laboratory.  I provide him with resources when he requests them.  He doesn't have anything to do with lab operations.  

Nice of you to randomly call associates of someone you don't like, though.  Maybe I should call one of your associates and tell him about your habits of trolling online?

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:37 | 752372 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Look, man, it does you no good whatsoever to make incredible claims, such as an IQ of 161.  If you are going to lie, at least try to lie convincingly, ok?  Or, hell, man...shoot the moon and claim 261.

56 years isn't remotely close to correct.  In fact, Dr. Bartlett spoke precisely about coal reserves in his exponential growth series and how people like you CONTINUALLY repeat lies.  I really do not have the TIME or the inclination to go over this with you.  I have already done this eleventy hundred times with others, and have tried and failed to get you to grasp ANYTHING on ANY peak oil thread.

If your IQ was above 130, you would probably understand how asinine "300" years is.  You'd also understand the scope of your own error.  As it stands, you cannot and do not.

You will be on the next PO thread saying the same things, getting laughed at and eventually just getting abused.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 14:06 | 752880 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Stop calling me a moron, and I will never mention my IQ again.

56 years is the figure cited in the wikipedia article.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.  You said 70 years, so I figured moving up the date would be ok with you.  I really don't see what your problem is.

Your problem is that you think you are smarter than everyone else.  This is a common problem I have noticed among engineers (I have worked with many).  This is why engineers tend to never advance beyond their little cubicles, and wind up murdering people in their office.  

The fact is that there have ALWAYS been doomsayers who say that this or that is all going to run out in X amount of time, or that the world is going to end, or whatever.  History has always proven them wrong.  We have not reached peak oil, and even if we did, it will be moot as new energy sources are tapped.  I know you don't believe or understand that, but this has been the case for 5000+ years, and there is no reason for the laws of economics to suddenly change.  Yes, you are right, there will be a recession because of it, but it can be ameliorated by reduction in the size of government.

Thu, 11/25/2010 - 07:27 | 754394 kiwidor
kiwidor's picture

You are a fucking moron.  There are manifold reasons why engineers don't advance beyond their cubicles.  1) they are smarter than you 2) they are more ethical than you 3) they are not morons like you 4) 'success' in this corporatised mess of a planet depends on deception and stupidity.  (the kind of stupidity that believes what its saying because some authority or other told it so)

By the way, I'm moving to your office.  And I like my violence 'hands on'.

 

luv,

k.

p.s.  "ameliorated by reduction in the size of government."  sweet pissing jesus i nearly fractured my spine laughing at that shit.  you are a fucking moron and a health hazard.

 

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 21:37 | 753906 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

"we will convert coal to oil"

Name the current industry, location and production output of a facility that is currently converting coal to oil.  Can you even describe the design and overall efficiency of process?  Or is this the case that someone who you can't remember told you about this great new process, therefore you have assumed that the technology is mature and all we have to do is "wave our magic wand" and it will appear.  And it's not the end of the "fucking story", not by a "fucking (word of your choice)" long shot.  People like you have gotten us into a "fine fucking mess" and are to "fucking" stupid and to "fucking" arrogent to realize it!!!

"You peak oilers had best propose a solution other than "carbon tax" or other big government solutions if you ever want to be taken seriously.  No-one is going to abandon modern life based on your predictions, all of which have proven false in the past."

Your logic in the above statementis seriously flawed.  An impartial expert is telling you the conclusions of an observation and you discredit the impartial expert's observation given to you, because a solution wasn't also provided!!!  You're a "fucking" imbecile!!!

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:02 | 751552 Duck
Duck's picture

Peak oil won't cause an energy crisis.  There are the equivalent of 18 trillion barrels of oil from tar sands, natural gas to liquids, coal to liquids, shale, etc. as compared to at most 3 trillion barrels of oil (of which we've burned 1 trillion).

Plenty of more fossil fuels to burn for transportation if you don't mind the environmental effects.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:18 | 751597 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

Goddamn you people are dumb. All that matters is cost to extract, PERIOD.

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:59 | 751673 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Bzzzzt, WRONG!

TIME to extract (rates, people, RATES) is AS important, if not more so.

No amount of money in the world will make physics move faster on your behalf.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 07:47 | 751897 txapela
txapela's picture

true, but he didnt necessarily state otherwise.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:59 | 751118 theXman
theXman's picture

Peak oil is real.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:03 | 751273 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

... so is peak BS, but apparently we are not there yet.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:59 | 751492 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Peak BS certainly does exist as it relates to anthropogenic CO2. Slowly but surely the public is getting wind of this nonsense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870464860457562135038145856...

CO2 is a trace gas in air. It is insignificant by definition. What I find amusing is all the head science when it comes to trying to prove that man made CO2 has any effect historically on temperature change. It has not been proven, and quite frankly ice core samples prove that increases in CO2 always follows temperature change increases by hundreds of years.

I love sharing these 2 simple short links explaining the reality of CO2 as a trace gas as it relates to our atmosphere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A&feature=related

Here is Dr. Tim Ball exposing the motive and reality behind the biggest looting extravaganza ever attempted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16bxVS-UtTA&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hj_6mVcKtw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e77JfDHbAN0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5C5FmrLl3g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUFwp2ReZgQ&feature=related

Incidentally the carbon credit exchange is one big sick ass con! Don't you believe it cause if you do they will loot you bloody.

 

 

 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:08 | 751125 Walter_Sobchak
Walter_Sobchak's picture

either they're making it peak for taxes or it's really peaking-either way-you're going to have to live with the consequences

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:35 | 751536 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Who says we have to live with the consequences? We prevent the consequences, by exposing this bullshit!!!!

Perhaps there are just to many chicken shit Americans who, like Jim Carrey in "Liar Liar", would rather kick their own ass than admit being wrong!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkh7neIwTgQ

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:08 | 751127 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

sounds strange but most contributors read articles before they comment on them. Assuming every crisis that evil bankers capitalize upon renders it false is a dangerous and naive MO

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:04 | 751263 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

“once i see the phrase "peak oil" i stop reading because i know the rest is just plain lies to promote carbon taxes for the global bankers.”

… together with their team of mercenaries / assassins … status quo maintained.

What, no mention of "Over Unity"?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:34 | 751493 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

What, no mention of "Over Unity"?

 

Soooooo, the children of the corn have never heard of thermodynamics? 

You learn something new everyday...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:02 | 751551 snowball777
snowball777's picture

...or don't, as the (head) case may be. ;)

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:18 | 751305 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

I think it is very important to read. The report has information that is valuable in a number of ways. One, peak oil is real- the question of when is more difficult to settle and subject to interpretation. 

As for "leaking" information that the Americans don't want published- well, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn. They are having a devil of a time getting that price up and this smacks of manipulation.

More important, the assumptions: one, that the economies of the world have to continue growing rather than shrinking. This is complete and total crap. If the bankers are going to continue to benefit from inflation, then yes, but if the populations decide the bankers have gone to far- economies could deflate and live within more manageable energy requirements. Two, that adjustments and new technologies are incapable of being brought on line quickly enough to replace oil. Heck, nuclear power is not new technology. In addition, he shows coal as being reduced. America has the coal- we aren't going to use it? Maybe the other OECD countries will be coal starved, I don't think we will.

This article needs a little more analysis before it's ready for prime time. Now, if we make no changes and continue to inflate- ok, otherwise, it's a nice read, but I think we still have time for adjustments.They are advertising GE electrical centers for cars and GM is talking an all electric line of cars. Nissan is headed there as well. 

I think someone wants to stampede the herd...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:42 | 751515 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

"GM is talking an all electric line of cars."

... yap, they've been saying that for a while. Promises, promises.

Someday, I'll wish upon a star,
Wake up where the clouds are far behind me.
Where trouble melts like lemon drops,
High above the chimney top,
That's where you'll find me.

 

Oh, somewhere, over the rainbow, bluebirds fly,
And the dreams that you dare to. Oh why, oh why can't I..?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:50 | 751662 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

They have had the volt technology for twenty+ years. To expand it within a fleet is easily doable. Just need the market. Get a clue...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 06:00 | 751852 i.knoknot
i.knoknot's picture

don't think the batteries are really there yet.

but, with the right marketing (and government regulation), that won't matter, cuz everyone will be driving the things anyway.

internal combustion cars will go the way of the incandescent bulb.

but at least we'll still have our liberty.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:25 | 751985 G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

The "volt" will go down in history as a colossal failure, because it is not practical in the real world.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:44 | 751366 trav7777
trav7777's picture

You are fucking stupid, then.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:27 | 751613 Mr. Denny Kneel
Mr. Denny Kneel's picture

We differ, blind and seeing, one from another, not in our senses, but in the use we make of them, in the imagination and courage with which we seek wisdom beyond the senses.

 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:37 | 751077 Fraud-Esq
Fraud-Esq's picture

we're building military bases on Yemen, as of last week, starring down on a key oil shipping lane.

Pentagon is now a direct market player in rare earths. DOE/Pentagon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870460810457522011289870713...

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:13 | 751296 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Nice link. 

Hehe. You think Pentagon is a player only now? Certainly a player in the strategic minerals game since the 1920s. Rare earths explains US southern Africa strategy including action in Angola, Namibia and our unswerving support for South Africa. 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:34 | 751338 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

...and our unswerving support for South Africa. 

Rhodesia...not so much.  I guess America tried to make up for what it did to the, "Native Americans."

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:26 | 751475 samsara
samsara's picture

Rhodesia

Hmm. That reminds me.

What's the back story again on how that country got it's name?  And again, what was that scholarship originally set up to do? 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:39 | 751081 Alcoholic Nativ...
Alcoholic Native American's picture

Fuck your land deeds.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:03 | 751555 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Well then give us back the wumpum, Squanto.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:40 | 751083 jory
jory's picture

Peak conventional oil doesn't spell disaster at all.  It means conventional oil gets a bit more expensive and replacements become economically viable.  No catastrophic event at all.  Bunch of hype propaganda.

 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:56 | 751113 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

good thing only one side of this debate has a motive to "hype propaganda" Never knew it was so simple

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:33 | 751192 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

Congratulations...

You just described PEAK NET ENERGY...

There is no difference between monetary value and energy value, it's the same thing. Money is and always has been nothing but a physical representation of the net energy surplus available to an economy to perform work. This work energy is embodied into the goods and services of monetary (energy) value.

The sooner you understand this FACT, the clearer our little global energy predicament will become.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 23:51 | 751394 trav7777
trav7777's picture

I have been trying to get people to understand this for like ever.

Having failed to do so, my conclusion is that they are too stupid to grasp it and so I just curse at them.

Peak happened in 5/6 oil producing nations worldwide ALREADY, yet there are still morons denying it.

There are those who see a rise in nonconventionals like tarsands with EROIs 1/10th of conventional crude and they say hey no fuckin problem, we have 10000 years of NG.

Not at present growth rates, we don't.  Only at CURRENT consumption rates and that means NO additional cars converted to NG.  Tarsands burn a shitload of NG; go check out COSWF.  They freakin bought a NG producer to lock up supplies sufficient to produce their bitumen.  They HAVE to burn it because Alberta didn't see fit to install a nuke plant to generate the heat.

It's all one big clusterfuck while morons whistle past the graveyard.  When real fuel shortages manifest, these idiots will be in here blaming Exxon or bankers or Al fucking Gore.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:05 | 751561 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

Waste of time trying to talk sense to anyone here, really.

I hear you loud and clear though. Basically we have about 3 more years until the energy surplus disappears. Complex society requires roughly 20%.

Just watch for backwardation in the futures market which will be the alarm bells ringing that the game is over. Basically anything over $70 is going to be locked in the ground, give or take $10

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:45 | 751650 Mr. Denny Kneel
Mr. Denny Kneel's picture

I highly doubt that the move will have alarm bells.  Think flash-crash, and then game over.

There will be no winner, no government, and unfortunately the tag line to zerohedge will become reality.

 

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 10:52 | 752221 MeTarzanUjane
MeTarzanUjane's picture

To some the bells are ringing. To others not. If you see the examples that wall st and enron have set, you have to conclude that inventory claims by the big guys are outright fraud used to boost asset valuations --> stock price.

Example in fact; last Monday Pemex reduced claims by 14%.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:43 | 751617 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

Firstly, I just want to say that I'm a long time fan of your work. How's the blood pressure haha...

It's all one big clusterfuck while morons whistle past the graveyard.  When real fuel shortages manifest, these idiots will be in here blaming Exxon or bankers or Al fucking Gore.

 

Yes, thats what scares me above all. It's not the fact that this economic system is collapsing as it was always coming to this end and I would argue, a necessity if global society is to continue to evolve into what many would refer to as civilization type 1, and beyond. 

It's the fact that when the system does collapse, either gradually or rapidly, the fundamental cause will not be recognised. Energy. And if people do not recognise and fully comprehend the implications of diminishing global net energy gains, we will never make the hard choices that are required to solve the problem. 

In my most honest opinion, It is nothing less than an absolute fucking tragedy. As you know, mankind only gets one free energy ride and we have reached the point where only two choices remain.

1... We recognise and accept that all earths resources are of common heritage to all people and that every person on earth is entiltled to his/her share based upon need (eg.child, student, worker, retiree etc) and global sustainability. Only then can we bring an end to the profit system of energy exchange and its infinite growth, energy/resource consumption and waste and replace it with a freely distributed global per capita (non transferable) energy income. And with it, put an end to the almost unfathomable destruction caused by overproduction and thus 90% plus of useless human labor. We have the computer, information and manufacturing technology to do this today whilst we also have the energy reserves.  

Or 2... We die a slow death fighting for the last remaining stores of ancient sunlight.

This is the choice we face now. Stock markets, forex, banking, bla bla bla mean nothing. They are ghosts of the past, nothing more. 

How anyone can believe that the economic profit system (in all its varied guises) was the greatest and final economic achievement of man boggles the mind and my misanthropy grows a little stronger everyday.

Fear of equality and fear of change...

It's pathetic, it's cowardice and it's global suicide...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 09:05 | 751956 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

Well boo hoo, just go crawl under a rock and die then.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 11:40 | 752393 trav7777
trav7777's picture

My blood pressure's great.  People have this habit of trying to impute to me the type of blood pressure that they themselves would have to have in order to act like I do.

This is my internet persona...I can calmly berate people.

To be honest, though, I really am not into this shared heritage shit.  Most people are worthless and should not be entitled to scarce resources. 

Fri, 11/26/2010 - 20:02 | 756546 BigJim
BigJim's picture

If I understand you correctly, you want to discard price discovery.

Please explain how your system will be different from all the other attempts to make central planning not be a complete clusterf*ck.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:47 | 751229 sagerxx
sagerxx's picture

Jory -- ya'll oughta look into a l'il thingy called EROEI vis-a-vis them there "economically viable replacements"...

Also the lead time required to put those "replacements" into effect. 

And the $$$ for the infrastructure for same. 

Amateurs.  Eesh.

VIVA! -- Sager

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:05 | 751560 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Give this man a prize! Sager, FTW.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:37 | 751092 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

The title of this piece "The Economy Is Set To Starve" is a misnomer.

The economy is on life support and is being fed intravenously with artifical stimulus created by an unconstitutional authority. The imbalances are prevalant to the point of being insulting. If you work in the financial services industry you continue to make massive amounts of cash while the suffering class is held responsible in perpetuity for the fiscal imprudence of others.

At somepoint (hopefully sooner, rather than later) the populace will get violent and those who have taken advantage of the system will no longer be able to hide behind the cloak of political immunity. The politicians will become the target of an overwhelming backlash and bring those whom hide behind the olive branches of "democracy" down in a fiery hurricane of true justice. A justice of the people against repression.

bitchez.

I hope the government continues this relentless assault on the middle class. Keep pushing us because once you truly light this fire you're fuckin' done.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 21:48 | 751095 Madcow
Madcow's picture

don't be so bleak about the prospects for oil - 

HUGE strides are being made in the unconventionals - a million years evolved from tar sands mining.  

don't dismiss the new technologies coming on line - these guys are going to get that heavy oil - (which is, by the way, comprises >80% of crude supplies, dwarfing remaining "conventional" reservoirs - 

 

http://www.petrobank.com/heavy-oil/

http://www.worldenergysystemsinc.com

http://www.cncp.com.cn/cpfdc/en/productsservices/cysb/part9/

 

Or google the Calgary Herald - "canada trumps saudi crude" 

 

 

 

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:20 | 751154 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Any oil they have to get by fracking , pollutes the water table period... peak cheap oil is here and there is no good alternatives, you have to have oil to produce damn near everything we use.. WE have peaked, peak ponzi,peak oil,peak jobs,peak peak.. next up big fuckin war ...

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:01 | 751416 malek
malek's picture

You forgot one: It remains to be seen if we have reached peak stupidity yet.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:06 | 751565 snowball777
snowball777's picture

We'll hit peak hydrogen first.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:11 | 751438 strenue
strenue's picture

Not to mention peak water. If you are not planning for a significant decline in available energy in the coming few years, you are not paying attention. Period. Darwin will come a'knockin'.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 06:49 | 751868 FatFingered
FatFingered's picture

You forgot the people peak.

Tue, 11/23/2010 - 22:40 | 751213 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

Alberta tar sands? What an environmental disaster.

“don’t be so bleak” … yah, whatever.

“Over unity” power !!!

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:00 | 751414 trav7777
trav7777's picture

honestly I don't know why I continue to talk to trifling nitwits, but here goes.

The ENTIRETY of C&C growth in the past 10 or 15 years has been in heavy sour flavors.  Lightsweet crude peaked a LONG time ago, but they just didn't announce it.

The sour varieties require more energy to refine.  EROI is declining.

It's already challenging enough for you cretins to grasp the difference between reserves and rates of production and I fully expect that going an extra step to trying to quantify the relative energy quality of the production is so far beyond your cognitive capacity as to be akin to trying to teach a monkey calculus.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:18 | 751456 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Nice to see that anyone that disagrees with you is a monkey or a cretin of some sort.  If the sum total of the denizens of Zerohedge.com are so stupid, might I suggest you find another outlet for your genius?  Perhaps the Yahoo finance forums?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:07 | 751569 snowball777
snowball777's picture

Cretin is as cretin does, monkeyboy.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:07 | 751571 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

Do you have a life outside of this place, or like..friends? Probably not. Everyone knows you're a nutter so they avoid you like the plague. Trailer dweller.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:19 | 751599 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Listen, Tmosley...it is pretty clear to those of us here who are intelligent how utterly dumb you are.

Your ignorance on this topic is shameful.

The peak issue has been explained to you in painful detail multiple times by multiple people yet you STILL are here actually believing that you know better.

That means that you are an idiot.  Compared to me, yes, you have the intellect of a monkey.  Sorry, man, it's just the way it is.  You are on the wrong side of the Downing Effect, son.

This is not a fucking matter of opinion.  We're not discussing religion or politics, douche.  We are discussing the physical facts of SCIENCE.  These are not arguable.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:32 | 751726 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If you think that science is inarguable, then you have confused science with religion.  That probably explains your fervor on the subject.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:11 | 751577 Fearless Rick
Fearless Rick's picture

Hey, Trav, why don't you stick that finger in your avatar up your oily ass? I only needed to be told I am an ignorant dipshit who doesn't know the difference between reserves and rates of production SIX FUCKING TIMES BY YOU, Motherfucker!

So STFU and kiss my dick. I dipped it in peak oil just for you.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:21 | 751600 trav7777
trav7777's picture

six fucking times?

Did you GET IT YET, mo-ron?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:34 | 751631 Seer
Seer's picture

Well, did you get it?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:17 | 751454 samsara
samsara's picture

don't dismiss the new technologies coming on line - these guys are going to get that heavy oil - (which is, by the way, comprises >80% of crude supplies, dwarfing remaining "conventional" reservoirs - 

Again, be honest and tell the folks the FLOW RATES.

In 10-20 years they may ramp up to how many barrels per day?  4? 5?  (and using how much Clean Natural Gas to Produce it?)

Lets turn some more Gold into Lead. Ya, thats the ticket.

The US alone is drinking 18 million bpd. 

Tar sands,  ROFLMAO

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:23 | 751463 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Oil is only needed for gasoline and plastic production.  There is not need or reason for it to be a net positive energy source, any more than solar panels on the space station need to be net energy positive.  We just need oil because we can compact a lot of energy into a small space and weight, making it portable.  There are plenty of energy sources that can be used to get at or create oil for those purposes that require it.

Even if all oil was going to disappear within ten years, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.  It would stunt growth, sure, but lots of factors contribute growth or lack thereof.  No-one is going to starve because of it (not in any first world countries, anyways).  Any starvation will be from disastrous economic policies, not peak oil.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:38 | 751509 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

Once again, if you do the math from a pure energy standpoint, we cannot live without oil.  There is simly no means to produce the amount of energy we etract from it.  The numbers are staggering. The current technologies dont seem to be able to replace the shear volume of energy we get from oil. I dont think 10 years is enough either.

I agree the sun will set in the west and rise in the east if oil production stops tomorrow.  But there will be massive die-off as a result.  The earth will treat humans like a dog has fleas (Carlin)

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:52 | 751535 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Read my above post.  Your math was off by a factor of several thousand due to conversion factor issues (the difference between power an energy, or kilowatts and kilowatt*hours).

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 00:58 | 751544 delacroix
delacroix's picture

gasoline, and plastic? is that all we need oil for?

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:10 | 751576 jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

Lol, exactly.

You don't exactly have to put much effort into showing how much of a clown this clown is. He takes care of the hard part.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 02:34 | 751729 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Reduced to first principles, yes.  Energy can be had from other sources, even if they are more expensive than what we pay now.

Wed, 11/24/2010 - 01:23 | 751605 trav7777
trav7777's picture

wow...you are even stupider than I first thought

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!