This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: What Peak Oil?
Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics
What Peak Oil?
Is peak oil imminent? Lots of people seem to think so.
The data (released by BP a company who have a vested interest in oil scarcity) don’t agree. Proved reserves keep increasing:
The oil in the ground will run out some day. But as the discovery of proven reserves continues to significantly outpace the rate of extraction, the claims that we’re facing immediate shortages looks trashy.
Some may try to cast doubt on these figures, saying that BP are counting inaccessible reserves, and that we must accept that while there are huge quantities of shale oil in the ground, the era of cheap and readily accessible oil is over. They might cite the idea that oil prices are much higher than they were ten years ago. Yet this is mostly a monetary phenomenon resulting from excessive money creation beyond the economy’s productive capacity. Priced in gold, oil is still very cheap — almost as cheap as it has ever been:
The argument that the vast majority of counted reserves are economically inaccessible is fundamentally flawed. In the long run there is only one equation that really matters in determining whether oil is extractable, and that is whether there is a net energy gain; whether energy-in exceeds energy-out. If there’s a net energy gain, it’s feasible. Certainly, we are moving toward a higher cost of energy extraction. Shale oil (for example) has a lower net energy gain than conventional oil, but still typically produces five times as much energy as is consumed in extraction.
But the Earth’s extractable hydrocarbons will eventually dry up, whether that’s in 500 years or 200 years. If we want humanity to have a long-term future on Earth, we need to move to renewables; solar, hydroelectric, thorium, synthetic hydrocarbons. And the market will ensure that, eventually — as the cost of renewable energy continues to fall, more and more of us will adopt it. I don’t buy the myth that markets are stupid — if humanity needs renewable energy (I believe we do) the market will see to it (I believe that is slowly happening). Markets are just the sum of human preferences.
According to the International Renewable Energy Institute:
Power from renewable energy sources is getting cheaper every year, according to a study released Wednesday, challenging long-standing myths that clean energy technology is too expensive to adopt. The costs associated with extracting power from solar panels has fallen as much as 60 percent in just the past few years.The price of generating power from other renewables, including wind, hydro power, concentrating solar power and biomass, was also falling.
So no. I’m not lying awake at night worrying about imminent peak oil. There’s plenty of extractable oil, and renewable energy will eventually supplement and replace it. But will politics get in the way of energy extraction? The United States has huge hydrocarbon reserves, yet regulation is preventing drilling and shipment, leaving America dependent on foreign oil. And the oil companies themselves are largely to blame — after Deepwater Horizon, should anyone be surprised that politicians and the public want to strangle the oil industry?
If there’s an imminent energy crisis, it will be man-made. It will come out of the United States’ dependency on foreign oil. Or out of an environmental catastrophe caused by mismanagement and graft (protected cartels like the energy industry always lead to mismanagement). Or out of excessive red tape. Or war.
»
- 31821 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I herd Alaska is the only source for oil in the world, and that there is absolutely no opposition to drilling or production there.
Bullshit-- Saudi Arabia is currently producing at record levels.. Production out of the US has been increasing, and if iraq can even get close to predictions peak is 10 years away.. I am sure it will come eventually --- Africa has a ton of production potential --- and technology will eventually make oilsand in canada and venezuala easier to produce ( and that could be over 1 trillion barrels of resource)...
Saudi is producing at half capacity ....as mandated by OPEC quotas
Which means KSA can pump 20 million barrels per day? Bullshit.
Oil and hydrocarbons in general are a gift from God , the universe is awash in hydrocarbons , some moons we know of have OCEANS of the stuff ... the oil here on earth is probably nothing more than the remnants of cosmic methane pulled in by our gravity... There is PLENTY of the stuff and the only real limit to production is a reasonable price that the producers can rely upon to commit the funds necessary to extract it.
PEAK OIL MY ASS!
I love the smell of sarcasm in the evening
Are you trying to say they need to drill your ass for more oil?
Just light a fire under it.
"Oil and hydrocarbons in general are a gift from God , the universe is awash in hydrocarbons , some moons we know of have OCEANS of the stuff ... the oil here on earth is probably nothing more than the remnants of cosmic methane pulled in by our gravity... There is PLENTY of the stuff and the only real limit to production is a reasonable price that the producers can rely upon to commit the funds necessary to extract it.
PEAK OIL MY ASS!"
SPACE OIL!
The peak oil people probably believe that really IS a sabre tooth tiger in their tank ... How many barrels in the ANWR? , How many barrels in tar sands? How many barrels in Coal gassification/liquidation? Proven reserve numbers are gamed by the producers... How many fields have been found and not quantified so as to not add to proven numbers? How many old fields left for dead 40 years ago have been tested and found to have magically "recharged" ... How much of this natural gas oversupply will go to making plastics so more oil can go to gasoline?
My failing is that I am not religious. Belief in Peak Oil often borders on foam at the mouth religious nuttery. That would be totally harmless were it not for the damage that it can cause to your portfolio by influencing your mind into making bad choices. Anyway, we take responsibility for our own actions (as do our respective portfolios). I would rather have 99 people out of 100 think I am an ass and get a 30 percent return on my capital annualised than have 99 people out of 100 agree with me and lose my shirt in the markets.
"Belief in Peak Oil often borders on foam at the mouth religious nuttery"
Peak oil is a scientific inevitability at current rates of consumption. The only question is how long will it take. Some say now, most de-classified government documents say a few decades (though more recent data can only be guessed at. Recent military action in the Middle East is quite telling), and the author of this article says hundreds of years (which is also telling). So, by stating bluntly that the entire theory is nonsense, you are implying that we will never pass a peak in production. That shows that you have little understanding of the subject and have a misinformed opinion. Please go back to worshiping your investment portfolio, as it seems that THAT is your religion... which is less admirable than any other religion, even in my atheistic opinion.
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. The oil age won't end because we run out of oil (or even hit a "peak" in oil production). The goal posts keep moving. Conventional crude was accurately predicted as peaking and it has. Unconconventional crude has filled the gap. The boundaries of what types of crude oil (or "crude oil") that can be used to make refined petrol keep on changing with time. I agree that if technology remains static then we will all die of starvation because current types of crude being used have a finite lifespan. However, if current reserves can be used effectively for even three decades without peaking, then any talk of "peak oil" becomes meaningless since we have no idea what technology will be used in three decades from now. Not many could have envisaged turning the tar sands into commercially feasible crude even two decades back. Natural gas reserves were suppoed to be massively in decline in America even a decade ago and yet production has been ramped up with the shale gas finds.
I highly commend your commitment to "scientific" theory. If you are convinced that crude is going to or has peaked, then you need to long WTI with some leverage. Hey you cannot possibly lose can you? If peak oil theory is right, oil price have to have another spike. It just common sense no?
+1
"Unconconventional crude has filled the gap"
one extra con.
Freudian slip?
define "filling the gap"
equal energy return?
equal effort?
equal rights?
equal amount of wars?
it's just common sense no?
The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. The oil age won't end because we run out of oil (or even hit a "peak" in oil production).
_____________________________
Ah, US citizen logics at work again.
Stone age ended when people stopped using primarily stone.
Oil age ends when people stops using primarily oil.
Stopping is stopping so...
Very US citizen comment though.
People stopped using stone because they found out use of something properer.
But it does not exclude the possibility you might have to stop because you no longer find enough of what you are using.
Very US citizen comment because once again, the claim that US citizens will overcome the environment is included.
They will stop using oil because a properer solution will be found, superior in most aspects to oil.
"The Peak Oilers have a bad track record at prediction. How many times in the last two decades has Colin Campbell predicted Peak Oil? "
Quite the contrary :
Hubbert has been right in 58 predicting US peak around 1970
Campbell and Laherèrre have been right in predicting on 98 global peak for crude around 2005 (which is what happened)
Know your sources:
Who is M.King Hubbert?
http://www.augustforecast.com/faq/who-is-m-king-hubbert/
Hubbert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Technocracy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Technocracy Study Course. In 1954, he became the creator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which theorized that the world was rapidly running out of carbon-based fuels. Hubbert is widely considered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.
What is a Technocracy and the Global Smart Grid?
http://www.augustforecast.com/2011/06/15/technocracys-endgame-global-sma...
The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism: It is Technocracy.
The development and implementation of Smart Grid technology in the U.S. – reinventing the electrical grid with Wifi-enabled digital power meters – is proceeding at breakneck speed. Although Smart Grid is the result of years of government planning, the recent kickoff was made possible through massive “green” grants that were quietly included in President Obama’s economic stimulus package starting in 2009
With the global groundswell of activity to create the global Smart Grid, it is doubtful that the initiative can be stopped, especially since it is so closely intertwined with the global warming movement and hence, Sustainable Development and even the United Nation’s Agenda 21 program.
In the United States, Smart Grid is escalating without any legislative oversight or involvement; in other words, it is being implemented exclusively by Executive Branch fiat. The same is true in other countries.
What is Agenda 21? and What are Smart Cities?
http://farmwars.info/?p=7592
A Smart City is an environment where literally everything you do and say can and will be monitored because everything and everyone will be attached to a complex grid of sensors and wireless networks, with your particular Smart City acting as the platform on which the grid is maintained.
Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 for Dummies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM&feature=player_embedded
I personally look forward to Global Peak Gullibility
exactly - a lot of comments debating peak oil, but little in the way of pointing out that govt. and industry collude to continue global dependence on oil.
The entire green push of Barry's tenure was focused on solar and wind?
neo-Feudalism
I'm sure the Clean Air Act had nothing to do with it. It was all fizziks.
Hmmm, so the oil in the middle east is just decreasing? What?
The problem with "typical" EROI is that it's not really the EROI available on all oil shale reserves ... a lot of them are simply not economically extractable at the moment and won't be for the foreseeable future.
With the pace in cost reductions in renewable energy compared to the pace in cost reductions of oil shale extraction I know what I think will be the winner ... I'd rather sacrifice a couple of existing deserts for energy production than to create new ones from all the waste as well.
Your caveat solves the whole problem, as the author states. "peak oil deniers" (that's me) know that renewables will continue to fall in price due to private investment. We also know that as the price of oil rises, more oil fields become economically extractable, increasing the supply of oil at that price! At some point in the future, because of slow, steady moves by one or both numbers, renewables will start to make more sense.
The change will come about, not from one man in front of a microphone, but from billions of consumers and businesses choosing, one at a time, that "for this particular application, renewables make sense for me."
It will mostly be subsidized academic research which will have gotten the technology to the point where the choice becomes available though. (Although most other public spending has been inefficient.)
That "choice" however, might be forced upon you, as you simply can't afford conventional energy.
Get used to pedalling that bike.
Exactly right BM ,
It has to do with price ... we don't have oil puddles on the ground in Oklahoma today or in LA ... (The famous HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL still has a producing oil derrick on campus ... LA was a big producer) but we do have enormous amounts of undiscovered oil ... the gov't has been colluding to keep oil prices up by denying access for exploration and production from the most likely tracts ...
this article is naive in so many way I dont know where to begin. Ill highlight a few:
1) you say the US has huge amount of hydrocarbon reserves - actually we have huge amounts of hydrocarbon RESOURCES. just because we have oil/gas in some form under the surface doesnt mean we have enough money (or energy, land, water) to extract it
2) even if we did, it would be at a much higher cost than our institutions (built on and expecting growth) would be able to afford
3)renewables work but as fossil fuel extenders only. we cant run the planet on solar and wind, even assuming the costs of integrating, balancing, intermittency etc are overcome. Renewables are for electricity, not for liquid fuels. Plus they have kinetic potential, not chemical potential like oil has
4) you are correct to point out the concept of net energy gain. But a positive net energy balance is a red herring. If you have a 1.5:1 EROI, for some biofuel for example, you would need to produce 225 million barrels per day just to net out your 90 million. Impossible. OUr civilization was built on 20:1+ energy gain. As that declined (and we went offshore, deeper, etc.) we used debt to temporarily function as 'net energy' at a cost of steeper decline once growth ends. Its not about being net energy positive, its about having enough net energy leftover (from the energy industry) to keep rest of society functioning at the minimum level the institutions/population will accept. Look at the diesel shortages in Bakken right now. All the 'gross' numbers there need to be handicapped by 1/5 or as much as 1/3 given the diesel and natural gas inputs into extraction. And that will only get worse as the 'best first' locations deplete.
5)central banks have kept oil from peaking globally. And even with their 10 trillion+ we have only barely broken 2005 monthly highs in Nov of 2011 for crude and condensate. What the media calls oil is increasingly not oil. In any case, the whole 'when will oil peak ' argument is not the point - the point is cost. And cheap oil has most definitely peaked
Your article is another in a continual Yergin-esque stream of misinformed economics. Natural resources have costs in natural resource terms - not in dollars. Conflating resources and reserves is a huge error. What happens if economy cracks (it will) and we go back down to $40-$50 per barrel for years - have you looked at what decline rates would be in that scenario? (hint, North Dakota will be 95% shut in)
Electro-catalytic production of methane is claimed to have better than 50% efficiency at the moment by German researchers ... if renewable gets cheap enough creating chemical energy storage from that is unlikely to be a problem.
PS. more complex hydrocarbons will be possible too, but at much reduced efficiency ... but really for energy methane is all we need, both petrol and diesel engines can be modified to run on methane.
50% efficiency would mean an EROI of 0.5.
Anything with an EROI less than 1.0 is a non-starter. It's just that simple, really!
Do use a little common sense, in this kind of context efficiency means the ratio of the thermochemical energy of the methane to the energy consumed from electricity.
The total EROI is the EROI of whatever renewable source of electricity you are using times 0.5, minus a little for the construction of the conversion plant.
I am facepalming so hard right now.
The process is driven by OTHER ENERGY PRODUCTION METHODS, YOU HOMONCULUS. This is a question of FUEL production, not ENERGY production. According to your idiotic theory, internal combustion is a non-starter because it only converts chemical to mechanical energy at 30% efficiency.
kindape, Quite brilliant! +1,000!
Certainly the article above is a hoax. So off the mark. It is a POLITICAL document, not an engineering and scientific document. Rubbish is what it is.
That is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard on the Internet. If price started to drop that low, demand would skyrocket, which would bid up the price. If demand dropped so low that the natural price for oil fell to $50, then we have bigger problems, like "why should I buy a barrel of oil to power my tractor, when I can hire six teenagers to pull the implements across the field for the same price?"
errr...wrong.
if oil dropped to $40-$50 and todays economic system were kept intact ,then you would be correct - demand would drive the price higher. But there are many events, mostly known or imagined to readers here, that would cause a stairstep downard shift in how the global economy functions. I think oil at $20-$40 for the next decade is a very plausible scenario. (ergo, oil has peaked, but the decline rate in consumption will outpace decline in production for many years to come) If you view debt as borrowing energy from the future you can visualize this
Finance people don't understand energy/ecology. But energy people don't understand debt/finance either.
You can't create oil out of thin air ... but it only takes one FDR to wipe out debt (and savings of course, two sides of the same coin in every fractional banking system ... including gold standard ones).
And yet oil fell to the $50s with the 2009 recession and demand did not "skyrocket" at all.
History lesson there for you. Recent history even.
The price was only $50 for one quarter, Where it crashed along wih everything else, and then continued upwards inverse to the dilution of the petrodollar. Not nearly long enough to retool, or rethink business models.
Hey John, take a couple of hours ,study the exponential function, and then get back to us
You will also want to take a look at the production collapse rates of injected wells. Cantarell is a good place to start.
An exponental increase in the number of wells to keep production flat. That ought to scare the shit out of you
Its all ok until its not. Thats the exponential function in full bloom...
On a long enough timeline
the production rate for
every well drops to zero.
In the meantime...
My cousin-in-law is making $100,000 driving a truck for Halliburton in Colorado.
Some of us here in Texas are making millions in tubular steel and conversions.
Halliburton is making billions making messes, and then cleaning them up.
I hear some of Halliburton's ex-executives are really good at making messes...but that cleaning up part, not so much
Hulk likes what you did there !!!
It really is that simple. One minute before midnight, or the guy falling off the roof of the 20 story building saying "So far, so good."
No discussion at all of the costs the public must take on when there are oil spills and water tables polluted by fracking. Or floating islands of plastic in the sea, the size of Texas.
The petri dish is getting crowded and all the bacteria are eating as shitting as fast as they can. But hey, no problem.
Oil spills are no big deal. As evidence, I cite our great President, who, when we had a massive oil spill, told all comers, "I got this, I got this. We don't need any help. It's not a problem, and neither private nor foreign help is needed.
Contaminated wells will be pumped for their contaminates, and the water treated, and the water used or released.
In the petri dish are many strains of organisms. One of them eats shit, and it will have it's day.
And if the island gets big enough, someone will buy it.
Surely the world will stop turning one day, and all the satellites will fall out of orbit, and THEN YOU NON-PEAK OILERS WILL BE SORRY!
Can the microbiology talk when you don't know shit about it. Exponential growth is always followed by a sessile phase where growth stops. The bacteria use the remaining nutrient as capital investment and build biofilms so that less and less energy is required. You can culture yeast that have been sealed in beer kegs at the bottom of the ocean for 900 years.
But then, you might as well try to explain evolution to a baptist preacher as the concept of naturally non-exponential growth to a death worshipper.
The university you graduated from owes you your money back...
Nobody is talking about the world ending you moron, we are talking about running out of a highly concentrated energy source
that represents millions of years of stored sunlight. Doing that in real time is non trivial and so far, a big fail...
If I can paraphrase, Petroleum represents "millions of years of stored sunlight"
Is that correct? Please, DO explain....(like, links and non-climatology peer reviewed scientific study and all that stuff...just to be safe)
To parapahrase, an imminent expert on this issue a Mister H. S. Simpson, to whom you MUST be familiar,....
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter...
Seriously? Millions of years of stored sunlight?
Scientology called and they want their fiction back...
Maybe stored solar energy?
If you go the path of oil with an organic origin, it grows hard to reject the notion.
This is not science. I believe you are invoking scientifizism.
its compressed time or concentrated life which, absent a few things at the bottom of the ocean, ultimately derives from the sun
Here's a great book Davey. Check out the contents
http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere.html?id=PEyYSU...
Think of petroleum as a liquid mineral. Like Mercury is a liquid metal.
Carbon is an amazingly expressive element that takes many forms (e.g. human) when exposed to a variety of heat, chemical and pressure conditions.
Complex carbon chains have been detected on distant planets and it is accepted that their source of creation is abiotic and inorganic. Created from within their own biosphere without the indirect intervention of sunlight on organic carbon (i.e. not paleo-organic sources).
Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most probable. And when the improbable is defended and sold so tirelessly one must consider the bias, ignorance, intolerance and manipulation of dogmatic control is possibly intentional.
After all, Saudi can pump endless quantities of oil. If it is true then why Saudi oil output is going down?
Prior to the Jewish Bolshevik "revolution" in Russia, Ukraine fed the entire Europe but after the "revolution" came a civil war and famine.
The history likes to repeat itself. Now, a new generation of Jewish Bolshevik took-over America and EU. So, be prepare for civil wars and famine.
1. We are in a depression; OPEC is cutting production to keep prices up so they can make money. They are in the business of making money, not providing maximum oil.
2. Yes, the more central planners mess around with food production, suddenly the food starts to become scarce. Maximum interference = famine.
Furthermore, refinery capacity is being shut down everywhere in the Western World. IF the demand was there, that wouldn't happen.
And why do the refinery operators think future demand will be lower, if it wasn't for higher prices, and hence, lower supply?
well said Matt
Enviro catastrphes. Like BP and Fuku. How about destroying water tables via fracking. Hope this stupid MF can drink oil.
Yeah, these are not costs at all, are they?
Fracking has been used in the oil & gas industry since the mid-to-late 19th century. So, now it's a problem?
Evidently, the only oil we won't run out of on this forum is patchouli.
I would literally put more weight in the opinion of some random guy from the street than anything BP has to say. The random guy on the street has a random chance of being close to right. In BP's case, they don't know how to tell the truth. This author's premise that BP has a vested interest in oil scarcity, by the way, is fundamentally misguided. If the public really believed there were oil scarcity, they would demand public investment in alternatives that BP does not control. BP's worst enemy in almost all matters of its business model is the truth. Trust tobacco companies much, too?
i trust tobacco companies about 1,000 times more than i trust the Govt
indeed under oath the Tobacco Execs said they did not know if there was a link between smoking and various diseases, and that is scientically the absolute truth
...unlike the lies they Govts make about smoking and its links to ill-health which are pure propaganda and junk science
heard of climate change?
another Govt funded junk science of epic proportions
There is too much here for a Saturday morning, but I will observe that human beings have more options than corrupt unaccountable government or corrupt unaccountable executives of Big Oil or Big Tobacco. The fact that you believe what the tobacco executives have to say speaks volumes to your ability to process information in a rational way.
i've read the science on both tobacco and climate change
i wouldn't support a tobacco executive simply on his word (opnion)
the largest and longest study in medical history is the Enstrom & Kabat study in California which destroys the bollocks perpetrated by the UN WHO, US EPA, EU and other Govt propagandists on passive second hand smoke
get this, passive smoking is GOOD for you ...including non-smokers... and their children
the truth is stranger than fiction sometimes but always light years away from Govt policy
um...big industries are the goverment. Now what was the point?
Dah sh%$ proven oil reserves keep increasing. They just arent increasing fast enough to offset the increasing growth rates in the developing countries.
Peak oil was never about running out of oil. It is about the slowing of the increase of growth in proven reserves relative to the usage growth rate thereby leading to increased prices. It is inevitable. Also, not all "proven" reserves are the same. Most are several times more expensive to extract than previous resverses. BP knows all this, and the article above is nothing more than a giant advertisement for BP.
Er yeah, but all Middle Eastern "reserve" figures have remained static for decades, despite billions of barrels being pumped.
Ie, they are fabrications; lies. There was a wikileak to that extent as well. Plus, recall how Shell had to downwards revise their reserves a few years ago?
Yeah so there's a lot of oil in oil sands in the Orinoco Belt. But there is practically zero infrastructure to pump it, and setting it up will take time and cost a lot of money.
Cable dated:2007-12-10T05:54:00
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 RIYADH 002441
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DHAHRAN SENDS DEPT OF ENERGY PASS TO MWILLIAMSON, GPERSON, AHEGBURG, AND JHART CIA PASS TO TCOYNE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/10/2017
TAGS: EPET, ENRG, ECON, SA
SUBJECT: FORMER ARAMCO INSIDER SPECULATES SAUDIS WILL MISS 12.5 MBD IN 2009
REF: RIYADH 1950
Classified By: Consul General John Kincannon for reasons 1.4 b, d and e .
former Aramco board member does believe that a global output plateau will be reached in the next 5 to 10 years and will last some 15 years, until world oil production begins to decline.
Note the date of the "leak" was in 2007 where in the following 2 years oil tripled in price. US government is already preparing.....this time even the auto industry is in it with ads to support hybrids and green vehicles. auto companies are all of sudden showcasing SUVs that does 30mpg....that's due to government mandate on energy efficiency which preparing everyone of oncoming rise in oil prices.Even George Bush supported increased fuel efficiency.
On December 19, 2007, President George W. Bush rendered the court judgment obsolete by signing the Energy Independence and Security Act, which set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020...increase of 40%.....
On July 29, 2011 President Obama announced an agreement with thirteen large automakers to increase fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025.
elites are worried....worried about losing control of oil and running out of oil.
"Proved reserves keep increasing"
Da Truth... thanks BP (at last)
not only proven reserves keep increasing but countries finding oil increase every year and unknown Oil reserves are bigger than anything we've found to date
wake me up in 1,000 years with a new scare story
We need to come up with a word for the process on the Internet where a website starts up, gathers attention and readers and posters because it is very informative/useful/interesting, and is then overrun with fuckfaced morons who do things like thank massive corporations for feeding them donkey shit.
Let's see
...
... just throwin' a few out there, let's see if one sticks.
Oh God!
Are there still people that believe PEAKS?
People, stop and think, please.
THE EARTH CANNOT RUN OUT OF ANY ELEMENTS. Period.
It's Saudi Arabia in alliance with JPM and the EnviroLunatics that want us to believe IDIOTICAL IDIOCIES. Move on. Go and do something else. Neither oil, nor water, nor wine, nor scotch, nor beer will ever stop flowing.
+1 for abiotic scotch
It's true. Scotch is abiotic, great way of putting it.
i believe it was Al 'lying' Gore that first cooked up the CO2 fraud with (pre-bankrupt) Enron executives who knew a thing or two about cooking up paper scams
when asked under oath in a Senate hearing if he remebered his conversations with Enron Execs on cooking up CO2 credit scams he said he "couldn't remember" ...that's every politicians go-to phrase when they don't want to indite themselves, though usually Gore has a lie ready most everytime he speaks
Al was and is too smart (sarc).
He wanted to literally own CO2 and get paid for it.
The problem: A lot of people wanted to copy the scam and the business lost its niche.
If only we had abiotic Livers !!!
I'd stay drunk. More fun.
Oil is not an element, you idiot.
This is not a lecture in chemistry. The message matters, not the academic accuracy.
I am an idiot for sure.
You don't know the difference between a compound and an element. Ergo, you are a fucking moron. Ergo, nothing you write can be taken seriously, because your base level of knowledge is so poor that you aren't able to construct any complex, rational thoughts. You are, in essense, the worst part of the internet, because, other than the content of your posts, the text and presentation of a website on which you posts disguises the fact that you are a moron. When the govt. takes over the internet, I hope they make you post under the name "IAMAMORON#######" with the # signs being your own personal moron number. You'll notice that I included 7 digits for the moron number, and I'm quite sure we'll be needing them all.
And attempting to cover the fact that you're a moron by saying that this is not a "chemistry lecture" is equivalent to somebody who stated that milk came from birds arguing that their mistake is acceptable because this is not a biology lecture.
I accept all that (I did not down you)
People understand me, but they do not understand you. If that's moronity, I'll take it and embrace it.
It's all well and good to tell kids that babies come from The Stork. They understand that. But if you want them to have babies, or NOT have babies, then they need the correct information.
If you tell your 18 year old daughter that babies come from the stork, you're gonna have a bad time. That's moronity(sic). Embrace it, and be prepared to embrace its consequences.
"You don't know the difference between a compound and an element. Ergo, you are a fucking moron. Ergo, nothing you write can be taken seriously, because your base level of knowledge is so poor that you aren't able to construct any complex, rational thoughts."
Stunning logic.
Resistance is futile...
But it passes the time.
PEAK LOGIC
you know why the world around you is insane? because people around you are insane!
i think it is time for Noah's Arc.
or Feudal.
If someone tells you there is no need for carpenters or furniture stores, because trees grow all on their own, you smile, nod, and back away slowly. You do not ask them about the bearing load of the dresser you are building.
Milk doesn't come from birds?
This will put a crimp in my sparrow ranching plans.
Milk doesn't come from birds?
This will put a crimp in my sparrow ranching plans.
Milk can, indeed, come from some species of birds. You need to narrow your definition of milk to make your point, I'm afraid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk
Which is exactly why it won't "run out". It can be manufactured using other energy sources as inputs.
I guess you forgot </sarc>
Absolutely not.
SCARCITY is NOT reality. Nothing is scarce on Earth.
There is ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY created by people who own these elements or natural resources and restrict the supply to keep the price high.
Question: Can the Earth run out of water? The answer is no. Hence the earth cannot run out of any elements or natural resources.
The problem is the people owning those resources by pure luck being on top of those underground resources, but not the natural availability of those resources.
Question: Can the Earth run out of water? The answer is no.
-------------------------
The answer might be yes. If you apply US citizens to the problem. If they go the path of hydrogen or stuff like that, you might get a yes as an answer.
Never underestimate US citizen consumption capacity.
Question: Can the Earth run out of water? The answer is no.
Question: Can people run out of potable water? Happens all the time.
Artificial scarcity.
As so far as it still rains in bigger amounts, you are correct.
very correct Ekm
we have hosepipe bans in Britain and the country has never been more flooded or underwater!
Chilli is the only country with a free market in water ...and it works (inc. water for the most poor)
meanwhile most Western nations water supplies are restricted because these public-private scams/monopolies simply cannot plan or remain fit for purpose (see congested roads etc)
In my best Homer Simpson: "Mmmmmmm, Chilli."
Zero Govt
Let the sheep do and think what the herder tells them to do and think.
Better question: can the earth run out of clean water?
was waiting for that
no scarcity? No math. Earth is a limited hosted. It also makes unique things ...over time. This species, more than any other, doesn't respect that.
Clean water exists within dirty water. Plans for solar stills are available on the internet. On a larger scale, LFTRs can purify all the water you want, basically forever (as there is a nearly unlimited supply of thorium easily accessable in the Earth's crust).
Too bad the nuclear regulators froze the technology of their industry when they started intervening, as all regulators do when left to their own devices.
ekm: an evolutionary dead end.
Artificial scarcity sure acts like real scarcity when it comes to the hundreds of millions of people who have died througout recent history for lack of money, food, medicine, clean water, etc.
Me thinks you are trolling or just enjoys ignorance. What part of EROEI don't you understand?
It's an idiotic concept. Energy is infinite.
My bad. you are trolling and enjoy ignorance.
I'll take it.
do you often burn water ?
lol, what a little airhead punk you are ...
The big question isn't a matter of running out. It's a matter of entropy.
Can you turn your own shit back into a Big Mac? If not, there might eventually be a shortage of such items.
The laws of thermodynamics are annoying and must be ignored.
To make it much more clearer:
Questions:
1) Can the Earth run out of water?
2) Can a male run out of sperm?
Sperm count can become extremely low and the sperm itself can become ineffective due to environment.
Same with water, it can become scarce in areas and not suitable for consumption. Both of these things may not lead to total annihilation but can result in severe contractions.
You need to bone up on chemical bonds and just about eveything else. Things will be much clearer to you then...
The Earth is not one big prostate gland...
but we're still its prostate cancer
I think I just felt the big finger...
2- any study on dehydrated males?
you sir are causing lulz all over the internet, I never saw sperm count being discussed in a peak oil thread.
Ted: Hey Bill!
Bill: Yes Ted?
Ted: Head over to ZH and check out today's peak oil story, there's some douchenozzle using sperm count as an argument for infinite elements or some shit!
Bill: Haha, what?! LulZ...
Best laugh ALL day ... thanks !
lol...
2) Can a male run out of sperm?
No, I tried and failed ;-)
The second law of thermodynamics says eventually yes. The earth definatly will run out of water.
The second law of thermodynamics has no implications unless you
- take a small (enclosed) system and
- take a long enough time frame
For our solar system that would be billions of years for that law to have a serious effect (sun burns out etc.)
I read few of your comments and I see you have a lot things to teach me.
I've subscribed to your comments.
Out here in the west, every drop south of Oregon has somebody's name on it. And the aquifers are depleting at a rapid clip. Will water run out? No. But there is a finite amount that is available for use per year. That's why whiskey's for drinkin' and water's for fightin' over.
And widespread desalination plants will come with their own drawbacks. The brine/slurry they discharge back into the ocean creates nice miniature dead seas. The oceans die = we die.
A small? It means nothing.
Time? Thermodynamis is not fundamentally linked to time. Time is though. Through a notion that is quite hard for US citizens to admit as it is irreversability, which US citizens have been denying, opposing to it volunteerism.
Men run out of sperm for the same reason Earth is "running out" of energy sources. Government is analogous to tighty whities. With major skidmarks.
It is sad that someone has to point out 3rd grade science to you. But, oil is not an 'element', dumb ass
I am writing to tell a story and not to be academically accurate. Sometimes erros occur when writing quickly.
It's very true that oil is not an element, but seriously, who will actually care about academic inacuracies?
Element or compound is irrelevant. What matters is the message.
To make my point in a different way, about 60% of ZH readers are baby boomers who almost never write on ZH.
Have you heard that Retail Investors have pulled their money (SAVINGS) out of the Stock Market (CASINO FOR SUCKERS)?
Well, "blame" ZH for at least helping those baby boomers stop their lossess and retain whatever capital they had left from being stolen by JPM and artificial scarcity makers.
Now question: Do those readers care about ZH's inaccuracies that sometimes happen?
I stay up all night making sure all the inaccuracies on the Internet are corrected before I can go to sleep.
Helium will be extinct within 50 years.
We could start a helium breeding programme and create a reservation for habitat. What do you call a baby helium?
Is the chart of oil priced in dollars and gold misleading? People don't pay for oil in gold, they pay in dollars or rupees etc. The cost of energy AND gold has gone up dramatically. I believe it is overly simplistic to chalk it up 100% to dollar debasement as opposed to scarcity or lower EROEI.
Furthermore, I don't think we can really accept OPEC, especially Saudi, reserve estimates without skepticism.
Have we all forgotten this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks
I don't think the world is running out of oil, but there certainly are not any Spindletop fields being found these days.
Peak oil is a prediction relation to consumption and extraction rates, and the way oil fields age. Peak oil is not a prediction stating the world is running out of oil.
oil is the last subject on which any government would be frank
Since we are almost out of evil hydrocarbon energy, shouldn't we go ahead and hurry to use it all up so the enviro's can move on to something more important to save the planet from impending doom? I mean, once it's all gone, there should be no more problem, right?
i'm sure we could use the eco-loons for something: gas?
But, but, but!!!!! We must respect Gaia and live in caves
/sarc
This is Emperor's New Clothes territory. Don't believe what you eyes, ears, and wallet are telling you, believe this chart, which shows price of oil in terms of gold.
Here's the sham argument the article makes - 1. Price of oil is merely a monetary phenomenon. 2. Look at gold - priced in gold, oil price has been flat.
Sure, but hasn't the 4 fold ramp up in gold since about 02, which is equivalent to the 4 fold ramp up in oil over the same period, also a monetary phenomenon?
The tawdry flaw in the oil cornucopian/Pollyanna logic is that "total reserves" matter. They don't. They don't matter at all.
All that matters - and sit up straight so you don't miss this one - is the rate of extraction.
Look at it this way. You're a starving man. Would you rather have a 1,000 gallon, sealed vat of nutrient drink that you could only drink through a tiny straw that is so narrow that you can't suck fast enough to maintain your body weight? Or a 20 gallon sealed vat with a normal straw that will sate you within hours?
Production rate. Rate of extraction. That's all that matters. A zillion gallons on the moon don't help. A zillion gallons at the bottom of the Mariana trench don't help.
The information is all there. Production has been flat for 7 years. Demand is high. Price has gone up. Isn't that fundamental economics?
Economists argue that "as long as the energy required to remove 1 barrel of oil is less than the energy in that 1 barrel, there is an economic incentive to remove." Sure. But that doesn't make the straw bigger. The better analysis is - how much will it cost for 1 barrel of oil if you have to dig up shale rock, crush it, heat it, and refine it to get the oil out? If the answer is 400 a barrel and that leads to 20$ a gallon gasoline, are we saved?
It's all about energy. Look at a map of where the remaining oil is. Look at a map of U.S. military bases. Determine that oil is 40% of all energy consumed in the U.S.. 40%. If you can't connect those dots, you must work for BP.
BP, by the way, does not "thrive on scarcity."
Think about it. BP makes money extracting oil and selling it. If it became understood in the public that oil production will fall quickly over the next 10 years, there are no new large fields to be discovered, what would that do to the stock price of a company that extracts and refines oil?
If you make chocolate candy for a living, would you celebrate the news that cocoa trees are dying out because that will drive up price?
Excellent reply. Please read what FrankIvy just wrote.
Here's the sham argument the article makes - 1. Price of oil is merely a monetary phenomenon. 2. Look at gold - priced in gold, oil price has been flat.
Sure, but hasn't the 4 fold ramp up in gold since about 02, which is equivalent to the 4 fold ramp up in oil over the same period, also a monetary phenomenon?
______________________
Not at all. Because gold is money.
Signed: a US citizen.
PS: I dont care to know if gold is circulated as a currency, buying actual things.
The truth is, gold is money.
Very good, young padewan. The Trolling is strong within you.
Dont forget Silver .. coz "If silver goes down, ALL hell breaks loose."
Sure, but hasn't the 4 fold ramp up in gold since about 02, which is equivalent to the 4 fold ramp up in oil over the same period, also a monetary phenomenon?
Wow, now that's advanced reasoning! (Sorry for the sarcasm.)
That's exactly why he is using gold as a measure, because it (largely) cancels out the monetary phenomenon on the oil price.
I am always puzzled by the idea of PO being a conspiracy by the left. Wouldn't peak oil and implied limits to growth by definition be counterintuitive towards extrapolating government giveaways indefinitely into the future? Many in the sound money camps believe PO is a leftwing conspiracy but is it?
Our money is debt and our debt is money. The only thing backing our money is confidence. That confidence, I think is largely derived in the past performance of growth in crude oil production, refining, distribution and the technology that consumes it. If there needs to be a concomitant correlation between energy growth and debt growth then we will need quite a few Ghawar sized conventional crude oil finds asap just to think about successfully extrapolating the current debt supply 5 years into the future.
The idea that energy is infinite and should be discounted as such sounds more like something those who value debt as money and want those without access to creating debt out of thin air to believe. Peak oil deniers are merely shills for maintaining the status quo of confidence in debt money.
Deniers (that's me) think its a conspiracy by the left, not because of the problem, but because of the solutions offered.
Any time the solution is for most of humanity to starve to death in the dark, the problem will be blamed on a lefty conspiracy.
Similarly, when the solution is to let a big company solve a problem for most of humanity, and therefore get rich, the problem will be blamed on a righty conspiracy.
but if the big company's solution is to let humanity starve to death in the dark, is that a lefty or a righty conspiracy?
Touché.
No, that's the American Way, and Manifest Destiny.
Fixing reality is a conspiracy from the Left.
Denying reality is a conspiracy from the Right.
Those of us somewhere in the middle can only hope that they manage to beat each other off before they wreck the place.