This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve
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":
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:
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.
»
- 31822 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Thats the funniest shit I have ever read on ZH... LOL...
Bye-bye overpaid bankers. Only engineers and people who can improve energy efficiency will have good salaries and stature in society from now on.
Unfortunately, that will take another 15 years or so to arrive - until "The Fourth Turning" has passed...
I am sitting here in the great swamp..
There is oil under the glades, that can't be searched for due to political reasons. There are oil fields off the east coast, which can not even be prospected for by law, same on the west coast. The Nuclear EROI is bull, because it includes the political costs of removing waste. I can list more examples.
If you want to convince me of peak oil, I want to see a report that takes into account all of the politics that keep us from exploiting the existing oil right under our feet. If someone has this, please post a link. I have an open mind and can be convinced.
Electric vehicles are very cool, (at least some of them), I personally can't WAIT to get my hands on, for example, the next generation of zero-s enduro's, drive down the road to the national parks, take the thing off the trail in TOTAL SILENCE to do some nature watching / hunting.
Quick! What is electricity?
Electric cars take power from the grid, which is mostly coal, and therefore does not impact the oil situation nearly as much.
peak this global that .. i'm just trying to find where he proves it's official?
i'm betting we've got something more precious than oil. and even though it does have everything to do with starving, we'll probably find out just how valuable our food economy really is.
You don't believe that oil and your food economy are separable problems, do you?!
i'm one who believes cheap easy oil that comes flowing out of the ground by poking a stick in the earth may have peaked, but i don't believe the hype that there isn't any left. i think the earth still has quadrillions of barrels left. for instance, years ago the saudis estimate their reserves at like a trillion barrels but 40 some years later they still have like a trillion barrels ... hmmm go figure.
my point was the headline.
It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starvei guess i don't agree with the official anything these days. and even though china and india might need all the excess oil, since the suadis have already nearly cornered the gold market, where are those two countries going to come up with the most valuable thing on earth besides water, which is food, to trade for that oil? they can't hardly feed themselves.
getting back to your question ... i'm betting big that oil and our food economy are completely inseparable.
How many fucking times does it have to be explained to people that it's PEAK ->PRODUCTION<-!? That means the MOST that can be extracted, for WHATEVER reasons! Reasons that are unsurmountable.
Der.....ya mean like gettin it outta the ground to the refinery?
Oh, ok then I get it now.
But just in case I fergit it again before I read the next comment, would you repost this concept repeatedly until the end of the thread?
You're betting that, eh. How courageous of you.
Let us assume that there is plenty of oil left. Has everyone forgotten that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? At some point we will have to stop burning all those fossil fuels no matter how much oil there is. So maybe Peak Oil will save us from runaway global warming.
planetary warming and cooling occur simultaneously on all the planets in our solar system and has more to do with sunspot activity.
when we pump more co2 in the atmosphere, trees just grow faster. which is why lumber is of poorer quality. someday they'll probably figure out how to put a man on the moon and how to squeeze 100 miles out of a drop of oil.
we can probably go ahead and fall prey to the arguments why oil should cost $300 a barrel or we could imagine that someday we'll advance to a stage where energy is nearly free. if they could figure a way to tax the world in order to keep the earth revolving around the sun, they'd probably do that too. but first they got to start small with peak oil and global warming.
Yeah let's stop the Sun too -- and maybe we can continue to spray alumina into the skys until the soil PH is totally screwed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFL60wFIc_A&feature=related
Yeah let's stop the Sun too -- and maybe we can continue to spray alumina into the skys until the soil PH is totally screwed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taNpT-im9N0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFL60wFIc_A&feature=related
Let us assume that there is plenty of oil left. Has everyone forgotten that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide? At some point we will have to stop burning all those fossil fuels no matter how much oil there is. So maybe Peak Oil will save us from runaway global warming.
haven't you been paying attention to the actual weather. telling me it's getting warmer, while it gets colder, doesn't work on me. everything, is cyclical, human influence, or not
That's it...check the air temp while the oceans continue to get warmer and the ice continues to melt.
That's a good froggie.
the ice age we are currently in is only a blink of an eye geologically speaking. there have been hundreds of glacial advances and retreats. probably where you live now was once under 1000 feet of ice. your worries are about a process that is probably just beginning to reverse itself in another blink of an eye.
if you could live another 10,000 years you might not be as alarmed as today. but if you agree to pay the tax for another 10,000 years, you might also think the tax is what saved the world after all.
Zombie-any idea about the contribution that CO2 makes to the "greenhouse effect?" Do the separation of effects thing.
Meanwhile, up north, it has been getting colder.
Minnesotans for Global Warming have something to say:
http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/11/november-20-2009...
- Ned
Hey, you can junk both parts of double posts and not crash the system. Now, that's why I love technology!
I used to believe in Abiotic oil when I was a teenager. Then I got a job in the oilfield and actually learned a thing or two about where oil comes from. I have scoured the internet for weeks and months researching Abiotic oil. There is no such thing. Even the best cases for Abiotic oil are easily explained by another sedimentary source rock near by.
Please someone post up the proof of Abiotic oil so that we can all have cheap energy and I don't have to take another 2.5 hour helicopter ride to a floater.
are you saying that if oil was abiotic, you'd quit your job? huh? are you pulling my leg?
were you pulling my leg when you said you learned ... perhaps you were taught
and how can you scour the internet for weeks and months or even years and decades and not find any such thing as abiotic oil? did you really spend all that time?
oh wait, you found a best case for abiotic oil explained away with all the sedimentary rock you study out there on the floater or did you study it during the aerial observations you made?
i guess i'll take you word for it, you're the objective expert.
here's an article that took me about ten seconds to find amongst 90,000 results
http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/06/11/abiotic-oil-what-they-dont-want-...
Nobody asked for your article.
You want to prove abiotic oil, moron? Go invest $100 million into buying up empty oil fields in Oklahoma. You'll find sellers, I can assure you. Then start producing from these -- in your mind -- abiotically replenished fields.
When your flow rate is zero, go ask if the sellers can spare you a plate of food they bought with your money.
You know it strikes me as funny...were it not criminal in a corporate sense...that folk don't seem to get the meaning of our recent gulf oil well disaster...and certain conclusions that could easily be reached in terms of the peak oil theory.
But who am I? I'm just a dumb American, right?
You see, and for my money, when these wells hit 2-3 miles down and the flow is so strong that valves cannot hold...that tells me something. It tells me that my common sense is NOT in line with Peak Oil Theory. It tells me that oil is produced somewhere deep in the crust of the earth, under heat and pressure...a chemical reaction that is likely endless.
But what do I know...
Cdad was here on the Peak Oil Theory
Here's a question for you: how much oil is in Yellowstone? If what you're saying was true, you would find at least some oil around volcanoes. Now did we?
That's logical thinking.
And I'll give you another example - the Great Artesian Basin here in Australia. When bores were first drilled in the 1890's the water was known to spout 100 metres into the air, from bores 1000 metres or more in depth. There is no way rainwater percolating through sediments for 1000 kilometres or more - from the ranges to the east - could provide this much pressure.
Also, some of these bores were known to throw off huge amounts of methane & other toxic gases. The bore water is often at a high temperature too.
The logical conclusion is that artesian water & the associated methane etc are derived from volcanic activity deep in the earths crust, being forced up through fractures in the rock as gas before condensing closer to the surface. And the Artesian Basin is not currently renowned for volcanic activity, though there is plenty of evidence of it in eons past, yet economic deposits of oil have been found & extracted.
Peak oil may - or may not - be right but if it is based on a false theory of the origination of oil I wouldn't be taking it as gospel.
>>
But what do I know...
>>
Nothing. You're a moron and a danger to yourself and your family. Shut up and never log onto the internet again.
Go study how thin the shell is of the Earth's crust.
Countries fight wars over oil. Why do you think there was a Persian Gulf War I and II. Why do you think we have PERMANENT military bases in Saudi Arabia. Why do you think we have two aircraft carrier groups in the middle east?
To make sure that oil flow uninterrupted. Plain and simple.
At some point in the next 20 years, the US and China will fight a war over oil. We will not lose. We will launch our nukes from our submarines and wipe out all the major coastal cities in China in under 15 minutes.
That's what I call DEMAND DESTRUCTION. After China gets nuked India will be too scared to contemplate importing more oil.
Everytime I write about the US launching a preemptive nuclear war against China I get flagged as junk. But nobody has yet provided me a credible counter argument on why it would not happen.
We have already started TWO preemptive wars in the middle east over oil. Why do you think that we would not start a THIRD war (a nuclear one) with China to
1) wipe out our debt to them
2) wipe out a competitor for oil
Killing two birds with one stone. Hitler was elected to power. This is how history will repeat. The US will experience hyperinflation because of Peak Oil. The people will rise and elect the next president who will blame all our problems on China. After he gets elected he will push the button to nuke China.
This will happen within 20 years. Mark my words. You read it here first.
George Orwell
They will fight back?
"Everytime I write about the US launching a preemptive nuclear war against China I get flagged as junk. But nobody has yet provided me a credible counter argument on why it would not happen."
How about this for a credible argument? You, nor anyone else can predict the future.
So...you're assuming that the entirety of Chinese intelligence doesn't know about the topic you're posting on a public comments section of a website?
That they'll just sit back and let themselves be nuked then subjugated again? And India won't do anything because they're "scared" is the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. You didn't even bother to mention the other nuclear states (Pakistan, Russia) who are right next to China. I'm assuming you think they won't respond out of fear, I would suggest that they will plan and respond accordingly out of fear.
Second, we're going to experience hyperinflation because of Peak Oil but we'll still have to nuke China to get rid of our debt?...
Your argument can be summed up as this:
1. Peak Oil
2. Hyperinflation
3. New President
4. Nuke China
5. ???
6. PROFIT!!!
Mark Twain
This is the energy equivalent of Eldredge and Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium Theory - we're reaching a point where statis is broken and radical change is generated.
Being a terminal optimist, there are radical ideas that may gain more traction. Maybe coal, natural gas and other sources in concert with the remaining oil reserves will buy enough time to prove (or disprove) them.
* Mining the moon for helium 3.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/19296/
* Algae fuel
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55665/title/Algae_as_biofuel_still_rough_around_the_edges
Also, not sure why concepts as simple as geothermal heat pumps don't get more play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump
first priority is get some bigass laser firepower up there ... blast the competition ...
I have taken to posting to oil threads less.
The first issue with them is people who want to talk about Russia and abiotic oil and do not ever quote a production rate of this alleged stuff.
Then there is the reality of trav, who seems to know most of what I know of this matter and who has clearly lost all tolerance for morons and I persuade myself that maybe there is merit in my retaining some tolerance for morons. It's possible he's right about this and I'm not.
Then there is Robo and price. He is not an engineer and probably not an Ivy League MBA and cannot understand that price isn't going to inform him of anything when China is tying up long term oil supply in contracts with no price publicized. It's rather a great deal likely that the market is irrelevant and provides no price discovery on this matter when most of the significant transactions are conducted non publicly.
Lastly, I have come to realize that like a terminal cancer patient who is informed that he has not much longer to live, society will hear it, but will reject it. Like the terminal patient who goes home and after a few weeks starts looking at quack remedies, society will also waste money on electric cars. Inevitable semi-near term death is something a society of mostly young (wrt avg death age) people cannot accept.
Peak oil's aftermath is not the end of the world. The world is not going to end. The end is when an asteroid wipes out all 7 billion. That's not going to happen. A number are going to survive.
Society last fed itself without oil at population 1 billion. If we assume some improvement in planning and agriculture knowledge, we should be able to get to 1.5 or 2 billion. A nice double.
Reading through the comments on this article it's abundantly clear that we passed Peak Intelligence some time ago.
i dunno, M,
i found some great insults i may filch for future use...
(there was an article?)
Good point.
(I think so)
"Here is your chance to provide the first links to peer-reviewed articles ever posted on the Internet proving abiotic oil !!!! Right here on Zero Hedge!!!! Act now!!! What an Opportunity!!!!!! Nobel Prizes sure to follow......and hot chicks, too!!!!!"
OK, but only if you're serious about the hot chicks part.
Awright, jokes aside:
1. There is no solid evidence that "peer review" contributes to the quality of scientific communications. I mean, it seems like a good idea, and it might BE a good idea; there's just no scientific evidence favoring it. If you have any, please cite it.
2. Here's a letter I wrote (august 2005) in response to the question "Is oil actually abiogenic?".
The "energyresources board" to which I refer is the yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EnergyResources
KEY POINT: for this issue to be resolved, as far as possible given extant scientific knowledge, requires someone who can READ THE ORIGINAL RUSSIAN LITERATURE ON THE SUBJECT. Virtually all of the literature is IN RUSSIAN. You cannot know the science without reading Russian. Clear?
Best single English resource: http://www.gasresources.net (Kenney's site)
OK, the letter:
[begin quote]
Possible, but very likely not.
The source of the most-(apparently)-credible pro-abiogenic literature is Dr Kenney's site: www.gasresources.net (As you will see from this site, Gold was a plagiarist.)
I corresponded with Kenney, briefly, but could not induce him to "come out and play", i.e. DEFEND his ideas in an open forum of skeptics, namely the energyresources board. He was very curt, cold, dismissive.
This topic comes up with some frequency on energyresources, which is a good board to track if you are interested. I suggest you work your way back through the archives, at least a year or two worth. I can send you zipped files of all the digests, however many years you like, if you would rather work from a corpus of stuff on your own disk (handy for searching).
You might be interested to know that I have been very vocally on the "pro" abiogenic side, to the extent of INSISTING THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER as yet on the matter, and suggesting/demanding that a real public debate take place. That is in contrast to the peakniks, who insist that abiogenic is absolutely, positively bunk. (And for suggesting a debate, I've been denounced and disparaged by the hard-core peakniks! Typical true-believer behavior.)
Unfortunately, however, the pre-eminent heavy-duty scholar in the pro-camp -- Kenney -- will not, as I said, avail himself. Further, I asked Kenney WHO ELSE BESIDES HIM could participate on such a level; i.e. someone who has read the original Russian literature on the subject, and who has a deep grasp of the area sufficient to defend it in a forum of knowledgeable skeptics. Kenney did not respond to me. (And yes, I was very polite about it.) So, what are we to think?
Seems to me that the abiogenic people will have to do a lot better than that. There are too many unanswered questions.
As far as I am concerned, getting to the bottom of this issue will require -- absolutely REQUIRE -- an extensive dialog, conducted in public. One-sided monographs (either, say, Pfeiffer's on the one side, or McGowan's on the other) are not adequate.
And btw: When investigating this subject, or any other contentious one, keep in mind: "a lie can run clear around the globe, while the truth is still putting on its shoes".
[end quote]
So what's your position on an expanding earth?
So what's your position on red herrings?
It was a serious question but it looks like you're about as knowledgable on the subject as snowball.
It was a serious question brought up at this particular juncture WHY? What does it have to do with what I posted? Is there some relationship? You're right that I know nothing about the expanding earth thesis -- beyond the fact that it exists.
Yes, there is a relationship, look it up.
Nothing between your ears can be classified as knowledge, I assure you.
Thanks kindly, Snowball. I can see you are a man of intellectual depth and integrity, who sticks strictly to the substantive issues at hand, never stooping to name-calling or the like. Pleased to meet you!
II-here's a crack at it:
Well, in science, there is significant evidence. That is, the ability to confirm data, recreate it if necessary, re-run experiments provides the ability to show that conclusions are false. Common example of this is the "cold fusion" hoax. Another example is the scientific fraud out of University of East Anglia, where the "original" "data" were "lost." See e.g.:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
But the "QA'd Data" were available. Took a Brit FOIA request to pry open the fraud. Then the dump of the commented programming sealed the case.
The solid evidence is that the amount of dreck to be published in scientific literature is reduced.
But your assertion in non-scientific realms is spot on, as political correctness influences selection of the "peers" (and a peer of a fraudster is ...?)
- Ned
REPEAT: "If you have any, please cite it." I'm still waiting.
Further: the ability to confirm data, recreate it if necessary, re-run experiments, etc., in no way depends on the peer review process in scientific publication, which was the issue on the table.
"Being a terminal optimist, there are radical ideas that may gain more traction. Maybe coal, natural gas and other sources in concert with the remaining oil reserves will buy enough time to prove (or disprove) them."
Being a terminal optimist myself, I too would like to think that radical ideas could gain traction. Ideas like ceasing to piss away vast amounts of energy on useless bullshit. However, I know that that idea is non-viable as it does not build shareholder value. [/sarcasm]
Truth is, we don't suffer from any lack of energy. We suffer from a surfeit of it. We've had far too much, for far too long.
Simple solutions are always the best and the answer is always right in front of us. Power, primarily in dense Urban areas, can be generated from an abundant source, the water and sewage system. Distributed Generation within the sewers can generate power and feed into the grid and the really cool part is that it is self regulating. You get more flow (read:generation) when people are awake and more water flows and a reduction in flow when the gentle folk of the city are asleep. Any potential Phd candidate willing to prepare a thesis...it all yours. Just a little credit to the Sofa King, please.
the need for cheap energy is the problem..
the MAIN block to cheap energy (in USA)
the Government..
no drilling, no nukes, no coal..
why do you think energy will get more rare and expensive with the crooks in gov.
ps does XOM benefit from above you bet.
Cheap gas has been massively subsidized by the U.S. government. The true cost of gas is probably somewhere north of $15/gallon.
"Peak Oil" is not any more about the price of gasoline than "global warming" is about how cold this winter will be. We are awash in hydrocarbons from which usable fuel products can be refined. The only issue is cost. We do not burn crude oil in our cars, we burn gasoline. The instant that gasoline made from crude oil becomes more expensive than gasoline made from coal, or sewage sludge, the market will switch supplies. As long as we have a free market, we cannot and will not run out of these sources of raw hydrocarbons.
A study was done for the Secretary of Defense by Dr. Theodore K. Barna that documents the United States has over 2x the amount of hyrdocarbon resources as does all of Arab OPEC combined.
see: http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congress...
Why do not you MORONS understand.
There is NO ENERGY CRISIS. There is an oil crisis.
You will NOT run 450 horsehower tractors on coal. They don't run on coal. They run on oil. No, your 15,000 oxen will NOT plow the 20,000 acre farm. They have to eat, too, and you have to get it plowed before growing season expires on the calendar. Ditto harvesting before it rots in the field. You will NOT convert coal to oil at required scale. There have been coal to liquid and gas to liquid plants for 50 years. They do not scale. If they scaled, they'd have grown.
No, the reason they did not scale was not that the oil price was too low you fing morons. It was that the processes require more water than a continent can provide. Jesus, how can you not get it.
Put your abiotic oil away. Just shut up. Go to Oklahoma, the richest place on Earth about 80 years ago, and stick a dipstick in the empty fields. Why aren't they full again? Why didn't abiotic oil refill them? Why? Because it didn't. Imagine that. It didn't. Why exactly do you care where oil came from. There's infinite hydrocarbons on Titan. They are more accessible than much of remaining oil.
The world runs on oil. It doesn't run on solar panels or windmills. It never will. It will run on oil and then it won't. . . RUN. It will die. YOU will die, and there will be one less moron. We'll keep 1 or 2 sevenths of the world population and they will live on and the history books will say that it was a serious thing, but here we are, 1000 years from now and still 1 or 2 billion. Yay, us. Just like with the bubonic plague; we know it was a big deal and a lot of people died but shrug; here we are. Future history will celebrate statgnant survival.
The year 1600 had 545 million people on the planet and the Americas were discovered 100 years prior. In 1700 there were 610 million people on Earth. About 10-15% rise in 100 years. In 1900 there were 1 billion people. Now it's about 7 billion. Thats 600% in 100 years, mostly in 3rd world countries without decent health care.
Why? Oil. Oil provided the food to grow. That's all going away.
And so are you.
Yes...unleash your anger. Give in to your hate.
With each passing moment, you make yourself more my servant.
Strike them down with all of your hatred, and your journey toward the Dark Side will be complete!
+1
Think I'll have to break out the DVD and watch it again with my son this weekend.
"Put your abiotic oil away. Just shut up. Go to Oklahoma, the richest place on Earth about 80 years ago, and stick a dipstick in the empty fields. Why aren't they full again? Why didn't abiotic oil refill them? Why?"
If you think that that is an intellectually respectable rebuttal of the abiotic oil thesis, then you are far too ignorant to be commenting on the subject.
This is coming from an abiotic oil skeptic, mind you. But one who happens to be open-minded and appreciative of authentic debate and exchange.
Oh, how very parliamentarian, proper and elegant of you. Try eating that elegance when the trucks don't bring food to your grocery store.
Want to have elegant debate? Let's have elegant and proper and polite debate that the Earth has no radius and no curvature and is flat and that Keplerian element sets describing orbital trajectory are all incorrect and the fact that they accurately predict the radar confirmed positions of orbital objects is pure happenstance. Let's be particularly well-mannered in how we treat the people who show up to assert this, knowing that each minute of time they consume is wasted.
Oh yes, I forgot. We're discussing religion; hence hysterical reactions are to be expected.
If you want to discuss the trucks not bringing food to the stores, and more generally the collapse of industrial civilization, there are plenty of places to do it. The old LATOC just split off into several fora (hubberts-arms, silentcountry, etc.). And there's also the oildrum. And so on. Plenty of venues.
Just for the record, on the off chance that anyone is still reading this thread (and the even off-er chance that anyone cares what I think): I think the abiotic thesis to be unlikely. The main problem is as described in my post above; to wit, that most of the literature on it is in Russian, and is thereby not accessible to most of us. Further -- and back to my opinion -- even if the abiotic thesis is correct, it may not have much, or even anything, to do with our immediate (and likely severe) liquid fuels problem. That, too, is hypothetical, conjectural, at this point. The problem is we just don't KNOW.
"93% of all the demand increase comes from non OECD countries (mainly China and India)"
LOL, you ignore the last 40 years of US oil consumption history (WHY?)
Also if you haven't noticed nearly all the "debt Commission" meetings have focused on INCREASED IMMIGRATION both as a percentage of the population and in real numbers meaning to get the same bang for the immigration buck as we did in 1965 they're planning on significantly higher levels and numbers of immigrants moving to America-that means significantly higher oil consumption growth especailly if hydro, coal & nuclear power is out.
The first major purchase an immigrant makes after arrival is buying a car.
Tyler, I got past the first 2 paragraphs & you did an excellent job of explaining so I got the jest. It's going to get ugly soon (2011).
With the riots in UK/Greece/Ireland/Spain, things are going to get quite ugly. I suggest everyone buy canned food for at least 2 years since the expiration date is for 3 yrs. Thus, you protect yourself & family from civil unrest.
Everyone must read a new book out about Americans who defend their small town & take a stand. Hard times are coming soon & it's time to take back our government from bureaucrats & corrupt politicians.
www.booksbyoliver.com
2011 is going to be difficult times & history may be calling us to our true destiny in life. It's a thriller!! I recommend it for this year's must read.