Loss of Petroleum Based Products..

[Trytostaydead]

When we talk about the oil shortage, everyone automatically thinks we'll have to go nuclear and take the subway. But what alternatives are there to current PBPs? And what will happen if those go away?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I notice you didn't even touch on plastics.

[Trytostaydead]

I notice you didn't even touch on plastics.

I thought that was a petroleum based product?

[slebetman]

Well, we'll still have celluloid. I remember an article in New Scientist about using sugar to make plastic. So there will be other ways to make plastics - only not as cheaply as we do now. Tell your kids to keep their plastic toys in mint condition. By the time they can pass them on to your grandkids the toys will be very expensive collector's items.

[Lord Zentei]

Artificial oil could be used, as well as oil sands.

[RedImperator]

The problem is not that we're in danger of running out of oil, it's that as the supply falls, the price of oil based fuel--which, at the moment, powers just about every vehicle in the world that doesn't run on muscle power--will rise to the point it will become economically impossible to maintain a hydrocarbon energy economy. Oil based products such as plastics and pharmaceuticals, while important, consume only a minute fraction of all the oil produced. They'll become more expensive, but they won't disappear.

[Lord Zentei]

The problem is not that we're in danger of running out of oil, it's that as the supply falls, the price of oil based fuel--which, at the moment, powers just about every vehicle in the world that doesn't run on muscle power--will rise to the point it will become economically impossible to maintain a hydrocarbon energy economy.

Unless artificial oil or coal oil can replace standard reserves in an economic way. Moreover, hydrocarbon will not stop being used simply because it is expensive, unless we obtain a more economic replacement (or multiple replacement technologies operating in tandem) for it that can operate on the same scale.

Though you are right about oil not running out; this doom and gloom prediction has been made for quite some time now.

[RedImperator]

The problem is not that we're in danger of running out of oil, it's that as the supply falls, the price of oil based fuel--which, at the moment, powers just about every vehicle in the world that doesn't run on muscle power--will rise to the point it will become economically impossible to maintain a hydrocarbon energy economy.

Unless artificial oil or coal oil can replace standard reserves in an economic way. Moreover, hydrocarbon will not stop being used simply because it is expensive, unless we obtain a more economic replacement (or multiple replacement technologies operating in tandem) for it that can operate on the same scale.

If it becomes so expensive to ship a widget from the factory to the consumer that either the company that manufactures the widget must take a loss or the consumer cannot afford to purchase the widget, the widget won't get shipped (or made). Our standard of living presently depends on cheap hydrocarbon fuel, and if that vanishes without a replacement, so does our standard of living.

There are potential alternatives and societal adjustments that could minimize the impact, but the catch is they need to be developed and deployed before the crisis comes, because if the price of energy balloons, we'll be too busy trying to keep the population from starving to build nuclear power plants or restore the railroads.

Though you are right about oil not running out; this doom and gloom prediction has been made for quite some time now.

The gloom and doom is a misunderstanding of a very real problem. There's plenty of oil left and there will be for quite some time, but as supply dwindles the price will go up. It will also go up because the easy oil will get pumped first, leaving us with the stuff that's too deep or too tightly bound with other material to be extracted cheaply.

[Lord Zentei]

Unless artificial oil or coal oil can replace standard reserves in an economic way. Moreover, hydrocarbon will not stop being used simply because it is expensive, unless we obtain a more economic replacement (or multiple replacement technologies operating in tandem) for it that can operate on the same scale.

If it becomes so expensive to ship a widget from the factory to the consumer that either the company that manufactures the widget must take a loss or the consumer cannot afford to purchase the widget, the widget won't get shipped (or made). Our standard of living presently depends on cheap hydrocarbon fuel, and if that vanishes without a replacement, so does our standard of living.

I don't really see how that refutes my post. We will still use hydrocarbons in the absence of viable replacements. As for our standard of living; extravagant and luxurious uses such as SUVs will be limited before widget transportations and basic necessities.

There are potential alternatives and societal adjustments that could minimize the impact, but the catch is they need to be developed and deployed before the crisis comes, because if the price of energy balloons, we'll be too busy trying to keep the population from starving to build nuclear power plants or restore the railroads.

Only if you assume a sudden, catastrophic rise in prices. Otherwise, the steadily rising prices are precisely the incentive for developing new technologies.

Though you are right about oil not running out; this doom and gloom prediction has been made for quite some time now.

The gloom and doom is a misunderstanding of a very real problem. There's plenty of oil left and there will be for quite some time, but as supply dwindles the price will go up. It will also go up because the easy oil will get pumped first, leaving us with the stuff that's too deep or too tightly bound with other material to be extracted cheaply.

That the cheapest reserves will be pumped first has always been the case, and has always been the basis for such predictions.

[RedImperator]

Unless artificial oil or coal oil can replace standard reserves in an economic way. Moreover, hydrocarbon will not stop being used simply because it is expensive, unless we obtain a more economic replacement (or multiple replacement technologies operating in tandem) for it that can operate on the same scale.

If it becomes so expensive to ship a widget from the factory to the consumer that either the company that manufactures the widget must take a loss or the consumer cannot afford to purchase the widget, the widget won't get shipped (or made). Our standard of living presently depends on cheap hydrocarbon fuel, and if that vanishes without a replacement, so does our standard of living.

I don't really see how that refutes my post. We will still use hydrocarbons in the absence of viable replacements. As for our standard of living; extravagant and luxurious uses such as SUVs will be limited before widget transportations and basic necessities.

SUVs are a fart in a tornado compared to the amount of fuel burned by the interstate trucking industry, agriculture, and ordinary suburban commuters. We're already seeing inflationary pressure thanks to rising energy costs, and that's with oil at $70 a barrel.

Thanks to our stupidly inefficient transportation infrastructure, the US is perhaps more vulnerable to energy cost increases than anyone else. For a very large percentage of the population, there is no alternative to driving to get to work or to run household errands. Likewise, almost all retail businesses and most factories depend on trucks to move their goods (and the retail businesses mostly depend on cars to carry their customers to them). Building public transportation and freight rail to service the suburbs is economically impossible--there's just not enough density. And that's before we consider how dependent agriculture is on oil: trucks to haul in fertilizer, hydrocarbon powered machinery to plow, sow, harvest, and clean the crop, more trucks to haul produce to market. None of this works right without cheap oil.

These aren't "luxuries". The average American family spends less than 10% of its income on food presently, and that's entirely thanks to cheap oil. Trading in the Expedition for a Prius won't do a damn thing to keep the combines running. And John Deere doesn't build those with hybrid engines.

Only if you assume a sudden, catastrophic rise in prices. Otherwise, the steadily rising prices are precisely the incentive for developing new technologies.

The history of oil prices shows far more catastrophic spikes than slow, steady climbs. You seem to be assuming that as oil is steadily drawn down, prices will steadily rise, but that's not how the oil market has ever worked. It doesn't matter at the pump if it's actual scarcity or speculation that causes a spike.

[Broomstick]

SUVs are a fart in a tornado compared to the amount of fuel burned by the interstate trucking industry, agriculture, and ordinary suburban commuters. We're already seeing inflationary pressure thanks to rising energy costs, and that's with oil at $70 a barrel.

Thanks to our stupidly inefficient transportation infrastructure, the US is perhaps more vulnerable to energy cost increases than anyone else. For a very large percentage of the population, there is no alternative to driving to get to work or to run household errands. Likewise, almost all retail businesses and most factories depend on trucks to move their goods (and the retail businesses mostly depend on cars to carry their customers to them). Building public transportation and freight rail to service the suburbs is economically impossible--there's just not enough density. And that's before we consider how dependent agriculture is on oil: trucks to haul in fertilizer, hydrocarbon powered machinery to plow, sow, harvest, and clean the crop, more trucks to haul produce to market. None of this works right without cheap oil.

Well, what did we do before we had the internal cumbustion engine?

For the railroads we used steam, or external combustion engines. These have the advantage of being (in many cases) multi-fuel engines. We would have to reverse-engineer from existing engines, but since quite a few are still in working order in various museums/tourist attractions around the world this is not insurmountable. Not the least because such working examples also require personnel trained in maintenance, repair, and operation so the knowledge base still exists. Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan, for example, has examples of steam-engine trains from the late 1700's through the 1930's, including a couple used to pull tourists around the Village. Their largest example has an automatied fuel feel to bring coal from the fuel car into the engine without the need for human labor, pretty cool actually. Couldn't call it a primative machine in any sense of the word, and if we went back to steam for long-distance locomotion no doubt we'd make further refinements.

Farm machinery used to be steam powered, too. Around these parts, state fairs feature working examples of those as well. Again, a sudden disappearance of petroleum-based fuels does not mean an end to all mechanized agriculture.

As for suburban commuters - the Chicago area has an extensive rail system, has had one since the 1880's or 1890's that extend into two neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana). Suburban rail IS possible. But you do have problems of getting people to the stations. Well, you know, I'd ride my bicycle there if there weren't so damn many cars on the roads in my way. You can also use small buses to transport commuters more efficiently to rail lines, and up until the 1950's there were city busses that ran on natural gas - which doesn't have to come from oil wells, it is a fuel that could come from bio-mass. Which leaves the question of whether we could produce enough of such fuel. Um... not enough to power everything but if we went back to using steam for long-distance travel/cargo there might be enough for that. That, combined with greater use of bicycles, motorbikes, and very small cars might make a significant difference. Of course, there are the social and psychoglogical obstacles to doing this to consider, but I'm not addressing that point at the moment.

For shipping... we could go back to partial use of sail power. The downsides, of course, are that sail power tends to take more human labor (even with modern systems that require fewer people than of old) and it's not as steady/reliable as fuel-driven shipping. Well, there's steam power again, either as replacement or supplement to sail. Use sail when it's ecoomically most viable, then use fuel when it's not.

What's really going to suffer in a "post-ioil" economy is flight. Flight is not, and never will be, as fuel-efficient as ground or water transport. It always takes more energy to fly. Because of that, however, aviation is arguably further along the path to conservation/alternatives than other transport areas. The airline producers have significantly increased the efficiency of their airplanes by both refining/improving jet engines and also by tweaking the airframs. Notice how passenger jets all seem to be acquiring those jaunty little upswept wingtips over the last decade? It's a simple change that significantly reduces drag and thus increases efficiency, which decreases required fuel. In fact, they're such a good thing that many carriers are retrofitting their older planes with them at the same time they replace engines. The aircraft manufacturers are also making weight reductions in their machines, so that more energy is used to lift payload and less to lift and move the weight of the plane wrapped around it. Even on the small end of aviation where I live there have been notable improvements. For example, compare the Cessna 150, a 1950's era design, with the Ikarus, a 1990's design. Both are 100 hp, two-seat airplanes. The C150 burns 9 gallons of gas an hour. The Ikarus burns 4 - AND it carries a larger paylod. The Ikarus is slower, yes, but that's because it's designed to be slower to meet regulatory requirements - tweak the airframe (one wing strut instead of two, for example, some fairings to improve streamlining, etc.) and it would be the same speed or even faster. So.... it burns less gas and carries more. In other instances, aviation engines are gaining Full Authority Digital Engine Control or FADEC, which will significantly improve the fuel efficiency of even 1950's era engines, much less more recent examples. On top of that, alternative fuel engines are not unrealistic - the Brazilians already have an alcohol-powered line of agricultural airplanes. The main problem with alcohol as a fuel is that is doesn't provide as much power as petroleum... but with more efficient engines this is less of an issue than it would have been even 30 years ago. Are we ever going to see jumbo jets running on alcohol? I really, really doubt it -- but at least in the US, the jumbos are only about 1/5 of the fleet. If we converted the other, smaller airplanes to alternatives and improved their efficiency there would be more petroleum derieved fuel for the big guys. And, as the price of air transport goes up the use of rail for cargo will become more attractive and that industry will shift accordingly

Of course, you can argue that we shouldn't maintain air transport... but in places like North America and Australia, where people need to cross vast distances with very little in between major metropolitan centers, air transport will remain in demand. One of the problems is a focus on huge planes and major hubs - hub airports requiring people to travel considerable distances to reach. Again, Chicago has addressed this in part by extending commuter rail to both its major airports. (Indiana also has commuter rail to the South Bend regional airport). An alternative, though, would be smaller passenger planes between smaller airports - and there is talk of doing this. Granted, it may not be as efficent per seat mile, but if you count in the transport to and from major hubs as opposed to shorter distances to near, smaller airports the costs start to average out. And a small plane flying full is more efficient than a big plane flying half empty or less. Cargo already takes advantage of this, sizing the aircraft to the destination and size of load but then boxes never complain - people do. Today's modern air traveler (in the US at least) has been conditioned to want Big Airplanes. Well, yes, statitiscially they ARE safer... but the smaller transports have matured and it's now safer to take a trip on a regional jet than to drive the distance by car. The downside is that the smaller planes can NOT handle as much severe weather. Smaller airplanes have to cancel more often. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs... aviation is all about compromise.

[Lord Zentei]

If it becomes so expensive to ship a widget from the factory to the consumer that either the company that manufactures the widget must take a loss or the consumer cannot afford to purchase the widget, the widget won't get shipped (or made). Our standard of living presently depends on cheap hydrocarbon fuel, and if that vanishes without a replacement, so does our standard of living.

I don't really see how that refutes my post. We will still use hydrocarbons in the absence of viable replacements. As for our standard of living; extravagant and luxurious uses such as SUVs will be limited before widget transportations and basic necessities.

SUVs are a fart in a tornado compared to the amount of fuel burned by the interstate trucking industry, agriculture, and ordinary suburban commuters. We're already seeing inflationary pressure thanks to rising energy costs, and that's with oil at $70 a barrel.

IIRC, artificial oil becomes cost effective at $80.

Thanks to our stupidly inefficient transportation infrastructure, the US is perhaps more vulnerable to energy cost increases than anyone else. For a very large percentage of the population, there is no alternative to driving to get to work or to run household errands. Likewise, almost all retail businesses and most factories depend on trucks to move their goods (and the retail businesses mostly depend on cars to carry their customers to them). Building public transportation and freight rail to service the suburbs is economically impossible--there's just not enough density. And that's before we consider how dependent agriculture is on oil: trucks to haul in fertilizer, hydrocarbon powered machinery to plow, sow, harvest, and clean the crop, more trucks to haul produce to market. None of this works right without cheap oil.

The transportation infrastructure in America is certainly stupid. However. You are assuming that no improvements in engine efficiency, such as hybrids, will emerge.

These aren't "luxuries". The average American family spends less than 10% of its income on food presently, and that's entirely thanks to cheap oil. Trading in the Expedition for a Prius won't do a damn thing to keep the combines running. And John Deere doesn't build those with hybrid engines.

He doesn't do so now, no.

Only if you assume a sudden, catastrophic rise in prices. Otherwise, the steadily rising prices are precisely the incentive for developing new technologies.

The history of oil prices shows far more catastrophic spikes than slow, steady climbs. You seem to be assuming that as oil is steadily drawn down, prices will steadily rise, but that's not how the oil market has ever worked. It doesn't matter at the pump if it's actual scarcity or speculation that causes a spike.

Oh, so? The prediction regarding peak oil, specifically that dire economic consequences will follow when the "regular" reserves run out is a prediction has been made for a long time. For example, in 1926, the Federal Oil Conservation Board predicted that only seven years of oil remained. Similar predictions were made in the 1970s. These predictions were all based on using the consumption rates of the time and proven reserves at the time that could be economically exploited as well as energy efficiency of engines in use at the time. But with increased technology and price, the available reserves were effectively increased. It may be trite to say so, but the market really does work in this regard; we know this because it has consistently done so in the past - and not just for oil, but natural resources in general.

This is not to say that searching for alternative energy sources is an unworthy enterprise, of course - but for all that, doom and gloom predictions are not rational. Spikes caused by speculation do not generally result in long term change, since they help to drive innovations and overstate the actual shortages.

[RedImperator]

Well, what did we do before we had the internal cumbustion engine?

For the railroads we used steam, or external combustion engines. These have the advantage of being (in many cases) multi-fuel engines. We would have to reverse-engineer from existing engines, but since quite a few are still in working order in various museums/tourist attractions around the world this is not insurmountable. Not the least because such working examples also require personnel trained in maintenance, repair, and operation so the knowledge base still exists. Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan, for example, has examples of steam-engine trains from the late 1700's through the 1930's, including a couple used to pull tourists around the Village. Their largest example has an automatied fuel feel to bring coal from the fuel car into the engine without the need for human labor, pretty cool actually. Couldn't call it a primative machine in any sense of the word, and if we went back to steam for long-distance locomotion no doubt we'd make further refinements.

Farm machinery used to be steam powered, too. Around these parts, state fairs feature working examples of those as well. Again, a sudden disappearance of petroleum-based fuels does not mean an end to all mechanized agriculture.

The infrastructure to build, service, and operate steam locomotives in the United States is completely gone. It's been cut up for scrap or left to sit and rust since the 50s. And except for a few old men, the skilled tradesmen who knew how to build steam locomotives are gone, too. Steam might well be a viable replacement for diesel-electric locomotives, but before it can be, we need to rebuild the factories, the repair facilities, even the watering stations along the lines. And we need to train a workforce to do it. It's possible, especially now while we're flush with cash, but if we wait until a crisis comes, the surplus needed to build that infrastructure again won't be there.

As for suburban commuters - the Chicago area has an extensive rail system, has had one since the 1880's or 1890's that extend into two neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana). Suburban rail IS possible. But you do have problems of getting people to the stations. Well, you know, I'd ride my bicycle there if there weren't so damn many cars on the roads in my way. You can also use small buses to transport commuters more efficiently to rail lines, and up until the 1950's there were city busses that ran on natural gas - which doesn't have to come from oil wells, it is a fuel that could come from bio-mass. Which leaves the question of whether we could produce enough of such fuel. Um... not enough to power everything but if we went back to using steam for long-distance travel/cargo there might be enough for that. That, combined with greater use of bicycles, motorbikes, and very small cars might make a significant difference. Of course, there are the social and psychoglogical obstacles to doing this to consider, but I'm not addressing that point at the moment.

Chicago is, sadly, in the minority in having a robust commuter rail system, and dense enough suburbs to make it practical (because the suburbs grew up around the rail lines). What happens to Phoenix, or Houston, or Los Angeles? Or even the people out in Chicago's exurbs, where settlement is too widespread to make a rail or even a bus line practical?

What may end up happening is that all those exurban McMansions with their half-acre of lawn and three car garages have to be sold by their owners at a loss because the middle class will not be able to afford 90 minute commutes by car anymore. Contraction is, I think, inevitable, unless we come up with a replacement for the internal combustion engine which lets people keep their cars. If we plan for it, it might end up working out for the better (I confess to being a New Urbanist here). If we don't, it's going to be an enormous social problem. I actually wouldn't mind seeing most of the suburbs get returned to nature, but I want to see it done carefully and because Americans' attitudes shift, not because middle class homeowners can't afford to drive to work anymore.

For shipping... we could go back to partial use of sail power. The downsides, of course, are that sail power tends to take more human labor (even with modern systems that require fewer people than of old) and it's not as steady/reliable as fuel-driven shipping. Well, there's steam power again, either as replacement or supplement to sail. Use sail when it's ecoomically most viable, then use fuel when it's not.

I wonder if we might start seeing nuclear powered container ships in the future. They're certainly big enough for one to be economical (though they might need a larger crew than oil burners--certainly it would have to be better trained).

What's really going to suffer in a "post-ioil" economy is flight. Flight is not, and never will be, as fuel-efficient as ground or water transport. It always takes more energy to fly. Because of that, however, aviation is arguably further along the path to conservation/alternatives than other transport areas. The airline producers have significantly increased the efficiency of their airplanes by both refining/improving jet engines and also by tweaking the airframs. Notice how passenger jets all seem to be acquiring those jaunty little upswept wingtips over the last decade? It's a simple change that significantly reduces drag and thus increases efficiency, which decreases required fuel. In fact, they're such a good thing that many carriers are retrofitting their older planes with them at the same time they replace engines. The aircraft manufacturers are also making weight reductions in their machines, so that more energy is used to lift payload and less to lift and move the weight of the plane wrapped around it. Even on the small end of aviation where I live there have been notable improvements. For example, compare the Cessna 150, a 1950's era design, with the Ikarus, a 1990's design. Both are 100 hp, two-seat airplanes. The C150 burns 9 gallons of gas an hour. The Ikarus burns 4 - AND it carries a larger paylod. The Ikarus is slower, yes, but that's because it's designed to be slower to meet regulatory requirements - tweak the airframe (one wing strut instead of two, for example, some fairings to improve streamlining, etc.) and it would be the same speed or even faster. So.... it burns less gas and carries more. In other instances, aviation engines are gaining Full Authority Digital Engine Control or FADEC, which will significantly improve the fuel efficiency of even 1950's era engines, much less more recent examples. On top of that, alternative fuel engines are not unrealistic - the Brazilians already have an alcohol-powered line of agricultural airplanes. The main problem with alcohol as a fuel is that is doesn't provide as much power as petroleum... but with more efficient engines this is less of an issue than it would have been even 30 years ago. Are we ever going to see jumbo jets running on alcohol? I really, really doubt it -- but at least in the US, the jumbos are only about 1/5 of the fleet. If we converted the other, smaller airplanes to alternatives and improved their efficiency there would be more petroleum derieved fuel for the big guys. And, as the price of air transport goes up the use of rail for cargo will become more attractive and that industry will shift accordingly

Of course, you can argue that we shouldn't maintain air transport... but in places like North America and Australia, where people need to cross vast distances with very little in between major metropolitan centers, air transport will remain in demand. One of the problems is a focus on huge planes and major hubs - hub airports requiring people to travel considerable distances to reach. Again, Chicago has addressed this in part by extending commuter rail to both its major airports. (Indiana also has commuter rail to the South Bend regional airport). An alternative, though, would be smaller passenger planes between smaller airports - and there is talk of doing this. Granted, it may not be as efficent per seat mile, but if you count in the transport to and from major hubs as opposed to shorter distances to near, smaller airports the costs start to average out. And a small plane flying full is more efficient than a big plane flying half empty or less. Cargo already takes advantage of this, sizing the aircraft to the destination and size of load but then boxes never complain - people do. Today's modern air traveler (in the US at least) has been conditioned to want Big Airplanes. Well, yes, statitiscially they ARE safer... but the smaller transports have matured and it's now safer to take a trip on a regional jet than to drive the distance by car. The downside is that the smaller planes can NOT handle as much severe weather. Smaller airplanes have to cancel more often. Tradeoffs, tradeoffs, tradeoffs... aviation is all about compromise.

I don't know the specifics of aviation's energy economy, so I may be wrong, but the way I see it, unless a major breakthrough happens, people are going to have to get used to crossing the country in a week on a train instead of five hours in a jet, or give up the idea of routine transcontinental (and transoceanic) travel completely. There will still be air travel for people and cargo which absolutely, positively has to get there right away, and local puddle jumpers doing what local puddle jumpers do, but the days when someone like me can get to San Francisco and back in five hours for less than $300 may be numbered.

IIRC, artificial oil becomes cost effective at $80.

Thermal depolymerization become cost effective at something like $50 a barrel if livestock producers aren't allowed to feed their animals offal. At present, it's legal to do that in the United States, but in Europe, it's not, and they're getting TDP plants online over there that should operate at much higher margins than US plants.

TDP, biodiesel, coal oil, all that stuff can stretch the hydrocarbon supply and buy us time. But it can't be a permanant replacement. Coal is a nonrenewable resource as well, and biodiesel and TDP both depend on petroleum to generate the raw materials they turn into fuel. The thousands of tons of biomass and waste plastic that TDP converts into oil are made possible by petroleum. Alternative hydrocarbons are not a permanant solution.

And it's worth noting, as I did in my first or second post in this discussion, that the infrastructure to make TDP or coal oil or biodiesel requires a surplus to build. If we wait until there's a crisis, it may be impossible to spare the cash to do it.

The transportation infrastructure in America is certainly stupid. However. You are assuming that no improvements in engine efficiency, such as hybrids, will emerge.

Where am I assuming that, dumbass? Do you think perhaps I've never watched television and I'm not aware of the hybrid? Hybrids stretch the fuel supply but they don't extend it indefinitely.

And John Deere doesn't build those with hybrid engines.

He doesn't do so now, no.

Again, hybrids stretch your supply but not indefinitely. They buy you time, but at this point nobody knows how much, and your glib little "He doesn't do so now" is predicated upon your assumption that once oil hits peak, the price will slowly and steadily rise, in defiance of history and what Peak Oil actually predicts, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Oh, so? The prediction regarding peak oil, specifically that dire economic consequences will follow when the "regular" reserves run out is a prediction has been made for a long time. For example, in 1926, the Federal Oil Conservation Board predicted that only seven years of oil remained. Similar predictions were made in the 1970s. These predictions were all based on using the consumption rates of the time and proven reserves at the time that could be economically exploited as well as energy efficiency of engines in use at the time. But with increased technology and price, the available reserves were effectively increased. It may be trite to say so, but the market really does work in this regard; we know this because it has consistently done so in the past - and not just for oil, but natural resources in general.

Hubbert predicted US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970--it peaked in '71. Cantarell, Burgan, and Ghawar, three of the largest fields in the world, have all peaked in the last few years. Saudi production itself has apparently peaked. In 1926 there were still undiscovered major oil fields to exploit; except for any that might be under the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, those don't exist anymore. I don't know what predictions in the 70's you're talking about, but the fact they were wrong has no bearing on the fact that Hubbert was right about US production and is apparently right about world production. We may have already hit peak, and even the most wildly optimistic estimates predict peak oil by 2025 (we'll ignore fairyland estimates made by the US government that say peak won't happen for 50-100 years because...well, because they say so).

This is not to say that searching for alternative energy sources is an unworthy enterprise, of course - but for all that, doom and gloom predictions are not rational. Spikes caused by speculation do not generally result in long term change, since they help to drive innovations and overstate the actual shortages.

The point, which I see sailed over your head, is that oil prices have historically risen rapidly, not slowly and steadily grown. Sometimes they fall again because they were based on speculation and market phantasms, but they also rise rapidly when demand rises and stay that way, like they have in the last four years (even before the Katrina spike, gasoline was well over $2.00/gal in the US, from a low of below a dollar in the late 90's). And Peak Oil predicts an exponential falloff in production. The price shock from that might be partially mitigated by a fall in consumption, but to be perfectly frank, you're on crack if you think the oil market will react to a rapid decline in production with anything but a price spike, this one permanant.

[Lord Zentei]

IIRC, artificial oil becomes cost effective at $80.

Thermal depolymerization become cost effective at something like $50 a barrel if livestock producers aren't allowed to feed their animals offal. At present, it's legal to do that in the United States, but in Europe, it's not, and they're getting TDP plants online over there that should operate at much higher margins than US plants.

TDP, biodiesel, coal oil, all that stuff can stretch the hydrocarbon supply and buy us time. But it can't be a permanant replacement. Coal is a nonrenewable resource as well, and biodiesel and TDP both depend on petroleum to generate the raw materials they turn into fuel. The thousands of tons of biomass and waste plastic that TDP converts into oil are made possible by petroleum. Alternative hydrocarbons are not a permanant solution.

Where did I claim that they were a permanent solution?

And it's worth noting, as I did in my first or second post in this discussion, that the infrastructure to make TDP or coal oil or biodiesel requires a surplus to build. If we wait until there's a crisis, it may be impossible to spare the cash to do it.

Oil companies are avaricious, but they are generally not stupid. They are well aware of the supplies they have remaining, as well as alternative fuel sources. Anyway, where do I say that we sould not prepare for alternative fuel sources now? In fact I made quite the opposite claim: my beef is with the doomsday predictions.

The transportation infrastructure in America is certainly stupid. However. You are assuming that no improvements in engine efficiency, such as hybrids, will emerge.

Where am I assuming that, dumbass? Do you think perhaps I've never watched television and I'm not aware of the hybrid? Hybrids stretch the fuel supply but they don't extend it indefinitely.

You referred to the requirement for cheap oil; that modern agriculture does not work without it, etc. The crux is the cost effectiveness of the oil. Anyway, where the hell did I claim that hybrid engines would extend the fuel supply indefinitely?

And John Deere doesn't build those with hybrid engines.

He doesn't do so now, no.

Again, hybrids stretch your supply but not indefinitely. They buy you time, but at this point nobody knows how much, and your glib little "He doesn't do so now" is predicated upon your assumption that once oil hits peak, the price will slowly and steadily rise, in defiance of history and what Peak Oil actually predicts, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Again, where the hell do I state that fuel supply will become extended indefinitely?

Oh, so? The prediction regarding peak oil, specifically that dire economic consequences will follow when the "regular" reserves run out is a prediction has been made for a long time. For example, in 1926, the Federal Oil Conservation Board predicted that only seven years of oil remained. Similar predictions were made in the 1970s. These predictions were all based on using the consumption rates of the time and proven reserves at the time that could be economically exploited as well as energy efficiency of engines in use at the time. But with increased technology and price, the available reserves were effectively increased. It may be trite to say so, but the market really does work in this regard; we know this because it has consistently done so in the past - and not just for oil, but natural resources in general.

Hubbert predicted US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970--it peaked in '71. Cantarell, Burgan, and Ghawar, three of the largest fields in the world, have all peaked in the last few years. Saudi production itself has apparently peaked. In 1926 there were still undiscovered major oil fields to exploit; except for any that might be under the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps, those don't exist anymore. I don't know what predictions in the 70's you're talking about, but the fact they were wrong has no bearing on the fact that Hubbert was right about US production and is apparently right about world production. We may have already hit peak, and even the most wildly optimistic estimates predict peak oil by 2025 (we'll ignore fairyland estimates made by the US government that say peak won't happen for 50-100 years because...well, because they say so).

Doomsayers such as Hubbert' follower Campbell have also predicted oil peaks in 1989 and 1995. They were not right about a dramatic decline of oil production then. Prices are not perfectly inelastic, neither in the long term nor the short term. Moreover, the ratio between proven reserves and current production has historically improved.

This is not to say that searching for alternative energy sources is an unworthy enterprise, of course - but for all that, doom and gloom predictions are not rational. Spikes caused by speculation do not generally result in long term change, since they help to drive innovations and overstate the actual shortages.

The point, which I see sailed over your head, is that oil prices have historically risen rapidly, not slowly and steadily grown. Sometimes they fall again because they were based on speculation and market phantasms, but they also rise rapidly when demand rises and stay that way, like they have in the last four years (even before the Katrina spike, gasoline was well over $2.00/gal in the US, from a low of below a dollar in the late 90's).

Oh, I get your point, all right, but you seem to have failed to grasp mine. Given the fuel efficiency in general use prior to past spikes, the economy should have collapsed multiple times before now. Yet, technology adapted despite this. Which is relevant to this because the simplistic bell curve postulated by peak oil doomsayers ignores technological developments.

And Peak Oil predicts an exponential falloff in production. The price shock from that might be partially mitigated by a fall in consumption, but to be perfectly frank, you're on crack if you think the oil market will react to a rapid decline in production with anything but a price spike, this one permanant.

This expected exponential falloff in production is the sticking point: it is a simplistic prediction. The peak oil estimates do not include oil sands and coal liquefecation, nor do they include increasing recovery rates of existing fields. These alternative sources are perfectly relevant to our discussion of the doom and gloom predictions of peak oil - regardless of whether they are a "permanent" solution, because such predictions concern sudden, calamitous effects upon the ecconomy when regular supplies run out.

[J]

Oil companies are avaricious, but they are generally not stupid. They are well aware of the supplies they have remaining, as well as alternative fuel sources. Anyway, where do I say that we sould not prepare for alternative fuel sources now? In fact I made quite the opposite claim: my beef is with the doomsday predictions.

Yes and no. They know roughly how much oil they should have and how much they are producing. In case you've forgotten, Shell had to downgrade their reserves by about a quarter and was forced reclassified proven reserves as probable & possible. Then there's the mad pumping spree carried out by Texaco & friends in Saudi Arabia shortly before nationalization which permanently damaged their oil fields. And let's not even get into the use of waterflood during primary production to maximise production rates, and which reduces the amount of recoverable oil. Oil companies these days are focused on maximizing short and middle term profits, despite what their commercials say, they don't have a plan for the long term.

Doomsayers such as Hubbert' follower Campbell have also predicted oil peaks in 1989 and 1995. They were not right about a dramatic decline of oil production then. Prices are not perfectly inelastic, neither in the long term nor the short term. Moreover, the ratio between proven reserves and current production has historically improved.

Campbell's methodology was flawed. He made unrealistic assumptions on prices & production rates as well as existing reserves and projected finds. That's why he kept finding peaks which always happened to be a few years off in the future.

Proper use of Hubbert's formula predicts a peak in the early to mid 2000's, Kenneth Deffeyes, one of my thesis advisors and a colleague of M. King Hubbert goes into a lot more detail on this in his book. Looking at world oil production figures for the last 10 years, we are currently at the top of the curve, oil production has peaked and plateaud, and will shortly begin the downward slide.

The largest and most productive oil fields in the Middle East; Ghawar, Burgan, Safaniya, Cantarell, are all in decline. Massive water floods are necessary to maintain production, waterflooding if you don't know is a secondary production method which is traditionally used after roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of an oil reservoir's recoverable oil has been pumped out of the ground. It should also be noted that large water cuts are been seen at all the above oil fields, this is a clear sign the fields aren't healthy and are being severely depleted. BTW, Saudi Arabia pumps more water into the ground than oil out of it.

Oh, I get your point, all right, but you seem to have failed to grasp mine. Given the fuel efficiency in general use prior to past spikes, the economy should have collapsed multiple times before now. Yet, technology adapted despite this. Which is relevant to this because the simplistic bell curve postulated by peak oil doomsayers ignores technological developments.

The difference this time is there will be no recovery after the price spike. Every rise and spike in oil price in the past has been temporary, all we needed to do was wait it out until someone turned the taps back on, prices would fall back to normal life would go on. This time there's no taps waiting to be turned on, we are full capacity and pumping as much oil as we can, there is no backup waiting in the wings. We can't bring the prices back down like in the past, this time it goes up and it goes up for good.

This expected exponential falloff in production is the sticking point: it is a simplistic prediction. The peak oil estimates do not include oil sands and coal liquefecation, nor do they include increasing recovery rates of existing fields. These alternative sources are perfectly relevant to our discussion of the doom and gloom predictions of peak oil - regardless of whether they are a "permanent" solution, because such predictions concern sudden, calamitous effects upon the ecconomy when regular supplies run out.

Wrong. The US for example uses about 20 million barrels of oil every single day. Oil sands production in Canada is a bit over a million barrels a day, and can't be expanded much beyond 5 million a day and even that will take at least 10-15 years. Even then it's not be sustainable since we'll run short of the water and natural gas needed to convert the heavy oil into oil which is commercially useful. The same applies to the oil sands in Venezuela. Unless of course someone wants to build a bunch of nuclear generating stations on site along with desalination plants on Hudson Bay to bring in millions of gallons of fresh water every day. It can be done but it will take decades, and the oil produced won't come anywhere near to filling in declines in conventional production, which means Hubbert's peak holds.

[Lord Zentei]

Yes and no. They know roughly how much <snippa> Oil companies these days are focused on maximizing short and middle term profits, despite what their commercials say, they don't have a plan for the long term.

You are actually claiming that oil companies are not planning for their own imminent demise?

Proper use of Hubbert's formula predicts a peak in the early to mid 2000's, Kenneth Deffeyes, one of my thesis advisors and a colleague of M. King Hubbert goes into a lot more detail on this in his book. Looking at world oil production figures for the last 10 years, we are currently at the top of the curve, oil production has peaked and plateaud, and will shortly begin the downward slide.

And this, despite the fact that the ratio between proven reserves and production rates has improved? Keep in mind that no-one assumes that oil will hold out forever, merely that the sudden, calamitous drop that is being postulated will not take place.

The difference this time is there will be no recovery after the price spike. Every rise and spike in oil price in the past has been temporary, all we needed to do was wait it out until someone turned the taps back on, prices would fall back to normal life would go on. This time there's no taps waiting to be turned on, we are full capacity and pumping as much oil as we can, there is no backup waiting in the wings. We can't bring the prices back down like in the past, this time it goes up and it goes up for good.

Long term trends and the temporary spikes being referenced are not the same kind of price change. Also, turning on new taps is not the only way to improve the cost effectiveness of our available fuels.

Wrong. The US for example uses about 20 million barrels of oil every single day. Oil sands production in Canada is a bit over a million barrels a day, and can't be expanded much beyond 5 million a day and even that will take at least 10-15 years. Even then it's not be sustainable since we'll run short of the water and natural gas needed to convert the heavy oil into oil which is commercially useful. The same applies to the oil sands in Venezuela. Unless of course someone wants to build a bunch of nuclear generating stations on site along with desalination plants on Hudson Bay to bring in millions of gallons of fresh water every day. It can be done but it will take decades, and the oil produced won't come anywhere near to filling in declines in conventional production, which means Hubbert's peak holds.

And what does this have to do with the predictions of an exponential collapse that my point adressed? We seem not to be having the same conversation: you claim that alternative sources of hydrocarbon will not be sustainable. I claim that they will help prevent a doomsday scenario.

[Count Dooku]

Well, a hydrogen economy could take care of motor transportation and air transportation. You don't necessarily need to get the power via the fuel cell - you could use it in a combustion engine. Hydrogen is easy enough to find, just expensive to get through. Nationaly, the U.S. would probably need a few dozen nuclear reactors dedicated to nothing but making the electricity necessary for splitting hydrogen from oxegyn.

Is a hydrogen economy feasible? Definately not right now. Gas stations would need a major overhaul. Even if they were just to add an extra pump for hydrogen, you'd need a way to keep it cool, and that's not cheap.

As for plastics, the other posters in this thread did a great job of covering that.[/i]

[J]

You are actually claiming that oil companies are not planning for their own imminent demise?

Sure they may be planning, but the actions they're currently taking are detrimental to their long term prospects. Every last oil company is now overproducing, they're using waterfloods during primary production to maximise flow rates, which means they get a lot more oil now and in the near future, but in the long run it damages the oil fields and greatly reduces the amount of ultimately recoverable oil.

And this, despite the fact that the ratio between proven reserves and production rates has improved? Keep in mind that no-one assumes that oil will hold out forever, merely that the sudden, calamitous drop that is being postulated will not take place.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this ratio, mind explaining it?

Long term trends and the temporary spikes being referenced are not the same kind of price change. Also, turning on new taps is not the only way to improve the cost effectiveness of our available fuels.

You still don't get it. When the supply threatens to run short and then does so we're not going to see a gradual upturn in price as you say. What happens then is panic, commodities brokers and traders realize the supply's going to come up short so they start buying like mad which drives up the price, consumers react to this with a panic buying spree of their own which spikes up the prices even more. The price will then drop slightly and stabilize or continue on an upward trend, historically this has happened every time there's a resource shortage, whether it's oil, tantalum, or even Tequila.

If by "improve cost effectiveness" you mean conservation and making the most of what we'll have, I'm afraid it's too late. Hybrid cars? It's going to take a decade at least to get rid of all the gas guzzlers and cycle in a sizable proportion of fuel efficient hybrids. Build more nuclear plants? That's going to take at least 5-10 years. Build a new rail network so we won't need as many tractor trailers? Decades. More efficient trucks? Same as cars. More efficient homes & buildings? Decades. Public transit? Years to decades, takes time to buy all the buses and setup bus routes, and subways & trains don't build themselves overnight. Are you starting to see a pattern here? The solutions, even if we found them and implemented them right now will take many years to have a significant effect on energy consumption. You can't declare "we'll save fuel" today and expect significant savings in a year, it takes a long time for the changes to take effect.

And what does this have to do with the predictions of an exponential collapse that my point adressed? We seem not to be having the same conversation: you claim that alternative sources of hydrocarbon will not be sustainable. I claim that they will help prevent a doomsday scenario.

Obviously not, you hold to the belief that everything will more or less turn out fine depite the fact that we're woefully unprepared. While there are vast amounts of unconventional oil, it can't be produced on a large scale sustainable basis. 5-6 million barrels a day combined from Canada and Venezuela is the most we can reasonably hope for, and the day that happens is decades in the future. That comes nowhere close to replacing the decline in conventional oil production which will happen by that date. As long as new production, be it from conventional or unconventional sources remains a small fraction of total production, the back side of the production curve will be an exponential drop.

[Lord Zentei]

And this, despite the fact that the ratio between proven reserves and production rates has improved? Keep in mind that no-one assumes that oil will hold out forever, merely that the sudden, calamitous drop that is being postulated will not take place.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this ratio, mind explaining it?

If the ratio between proven reserves and production rates is improving, we are not approaching a sudden precipice.

You still don't get it. When the supply threatens to run short and then does so we're not going to see a gradual upturn in price as you say. What happens then is panic, commodities brokers and traders realize the supply's going to come up short so they start buying like mad which drives up the price, consumers react to this with a panic buying spree of their own which spikes up the prices even more. The price will then drop slightly and stabilize or continue on an upward trend, historically this has happened every time there's a resource shortage, whether it's oil, tantalum, or even Tequila.

Oh, I get it all right: the spikes caused by speculation and panic are not of the same kind as long term changes; in fact you seem to be acnowledging this very point.

If by "improve cost effectiveness" you mean conservation and making the most of what we'll have, I'm afraid it's too late. Hybrid cars? It's going to take a decade at least to get rid of all the gas guzzlers and cycle in a sizable proportion of fuel efficient hybrids. Build more nuclear plants? That's going to take at least 5-10 years. Build a new rail network so we won't need as many tractor trailers? Decades. More efficient trucks? Same as cars. More efficient homes & buildings? Decades. Public transit? Years to decades, takes time to buy all the buses and setup bus routes, and subways & trains don't build themselves overnight. Are you starting to see a pattern here? The solutions, even if we found them and implemented them right now will take many years to have a significant effect on energy consumption. You can't declare "we'll save fuel" today and expect significant savings in a year, it takes a long time for the changes to take effect.

So let me see if I understand you correctly: you are predicting a exponential falloff within the next five to ten years? The nuclear plant point you made would suggest that.

Obviously not, you hold to the belief that everything will more or less turn out fine depite the fact that we're woefully unprepared. While there are vast amounts of unconventional oil, it can't be produced on a large scale sustainable basis. 5-6 million barrels a day combined from Canada and Venezuela is the most we can reasonably hope for, and the day that happens is decades in the future. That comes nowhere close to replacing the decline in conventional oil production which will happen by that date. As long as new production, be it from conventional or unconventional sources remains a small fraction of total production, the back side of the production curve will be an exponential drop.

And in these decades the production technology for tar sands will not have improved nor will artificial oil or increased fuel efficiency technologies have made an impact? Though again, you are citing a drop in the very near future, apparently.

[J]

If the ratio between proven reserves and production rates is improving, we are not approaching a sudden precipice.

Ah yes, OPEC countries have somehow doubled or even tripled their proven reserves without finding a single giant or supergiant oil field. And the Caspian Sea region has somehow sprouted 50 billion barrels of oil depite the fact they're in the tertiary recovery phase. And somehow, every year for a couple decades now, the amount of oil "discovered" in the Middle East has exactly matched the amount they've pumped out.

Let me explain things to you since you obviously don't know how it works. There's three types of oil reserves, proven, probable, and possible. Proven is what we can pull out of the ground now with current technologies and current prices. Probable is what can be exploited in the future at projected future prices with technology which is currently in the development stage. Possible translates to "we think and hope there's some oil there, cause the computer model said there might be".

Companies routinely and arbitrarily shift their reserves between all three categories, it often happens when a financial report is due. Sometimes people start looking a little too closely and they're forced to downgrade reserves as Shell was a couple years ago.

The point I'm making is this, proven reserves, as reported by the companies, OPEC, USGS, and energy brokers is suspect at best. If you want an accurate number you need to dig through the records and find the reports on the seismic soundings, core samples, test wells, the well head flow meters, and the water cuts, gas caps, and pressures of the wells. Then you can reasonable assessment of the health of each reservoir and the amount of oil which can be pulled from it.

Oh, I get it all right: the spikes caused by speculation and panic are not of the same kind as long term changes; in fact you seem to be acnowledging this very point.

What exactly do you think will happen when we start running short of oil? Peace, order and friendly sharing for all?

So let me see if I understand you correctly: you are predicting a exponential falloff within the next five to ten years? The nuclear plant point you made would suggest that.

Yes. We're at the top of the peak oil curve now, the fall begins shortly.

And in these decades the production technology for tar sands will not have improved nor will artificial oil or increased fuel efficiency technologies have made an impact? Though again, you are citing a drop in the very near future, apparently.

No. Mining and converting tar sands and heavy oil to useable oil which can be pumped through pipelines requires a ton of energy, water, and hydrogen. The long chain oil molecules have to be "cracked" and a hydrogen atom added to the ends to stabilize it. The source of this hydrogen and energy is currently natural gas, of which there are limited reserves, and the price of which is rising fast which means it may not be economical nor possible to produce heavy oils in large amounts. In addition the extraction of heavy oil requires a lot of water, and though most of it can be reused there aren't enough freshwater resources in either Canada or Venezuela to fully develop the tar sands. There's no way around it other than the nuclear & desalination plant measure I mentioned.

Fuel efficiency I already covered, it takes too long. As for synthetic oil, who's going to build all the infrastructure? And it's still going to take a couple decades to ramp up full scale production. Like I say, nothing we can do now will have any significant effect for many years to come. There is no magic switch.

[Lord Zentei]

If the ratio between proven reserves and production rates is improving, we are not approaching a sudden precipice.

Ah yes, OPEC countries have somehow doubled or even tripled their proven reserves without finding a single giant or supergiant oil field. And the Caspian Sea region has somehow sprouted 50 billion barrels of oil depite the fact they're in the tertiary recovery phase. And somehow, every year for a couple decades now, the amount of oil "discovered" in the Middle East has exactly matched the amount they've pumped out.

Let me explain things to you since you obviously don't know how it works. There's three types of oil reserves, proven, probable, and possible. Proven is what we can pull out of the ground now with current technologies and current prices. Probable is what can be exploited in the future at projected future prices with technology which is currently in the development stage. Possible translates to "we think and hope there's some oil there, cause the computer model said there might be".

Companies routinely and arbitrarily shift their reserves between all three categories, it often happens when a financial report is due. Sometimes people start looking a little too closely and they're forced to downgrade reserves as Shell was a couple years ago.

Of course they shift reserves from possible to probable and from probable to proven. They expend resources to prove new reserves as they pump existing ones up for obvious reasons; that's hardly proof of a conspiracy, even if they have been known to make mistakes.

Oh, I get it all right: the spikes caused by speculation and panic are not of the same kind as long term changes; in fact you seem to be acnowledging this very point.

What exactly do you think will happen when we start running short of oil? Peace, order and friendly sharing for all?

That depends on the speed and severity of the decline.

So let me see if I understand you correctly: you are predicting a exponential falloff within the next five to ten years? The nuclear plant point you made would suggest that.

Yes. We're at the top of the peak oil curve now, the fall begins shortly.

Well, well; how depressing. Though I guess one of us will be able to say "told you so" within a brief time - unless excuses are made for this prediction as for the ones made concerning exponential collapse in 1989 and 1995.

No.

<snippa>

Fuel efficiency I already covered, it takes too long. As for synthetic oil, who's going to build all the infrastructure? And it's still going to take a couple decades to ramp up full scale production. Like I say, nothing we can do now will have any significant effect for many years to come. There is no magic switch.

And of course, this depressing scenario is entirely dependant on your claim of only 5-10 years before an exponential drop being true.

[J]

Of course they shift reserves from possible to probable and from probable to proven. They expend resources to prove new reserves as they pump existing ones up for obvious reasons; that's hardly proof of a conspiracy, even if they have been known to make mistakes.

You obviously have no clue how it works. Reserves aren't "proven" by expending resources, they are either found or new technology is developed to extract a larger percentage of existing oil. The last find of a large oil field was Cantarell in the mid 70's, no major oil fields have been found since then. The last major advance in drilling & recovery technology was multilateral horizontal wells, and that was about 15 years ago. There are no significant improvements on the drawing boards, only minor refinements. Tertiary recovery (gas & detergent floods) have been in use for over 20 years, again, there's nothing new coming up. No new methods of finding oil have been developed in quite some time. Given that we're using roughly 30 billion barrels a year, an amount equal to twice the recoverable oil in the Cantarell field, you have to be an idiot to believe that claimed world reserves are somehow remaining constant. BTW, do you also think the Saudis can pump 15 million barrels a day for the next 50 years as they claim?

Well, well; how depressing. Though I guess one of us will be able to say "told you so" within a brief time - unless excuses are made for this prediction as for the ones made concerning exponential collapse in 1989 and 1995.

I already addressed that point, those predictions were made with flawed methods. Using Campbell's method always leads to a date which is a few years in the future. Hubbert's equations nailed the date for US production to within a year. In 1956 he predicted the peak would come in 1970. His prediction of a peak in 1995 for world production was off for two reasons, the OPEC oil embargo of the 70's and the Gulf War in the 90's. Both caused large extended cuts in production, without which the peak would've come a lot sooner. But once that's taken into account and the numbers re-crunched through the equations, the date comes out to 2005. Punching the numbers for any year after the Gulf War into the the equation and it comes up with 2005.

[Lord Zentei]

Of course they shift reserves from possible to probable and from probable to proven. They expend resources to prove new reserves as they pump existing ones up for obvious reasons; that's hardly proof of a conspiracy, even if they have been known to make mistakes.

You obviously have no clue how it works. Reserves aren't "proven" by expending resources, they are either found or new technology is developed to extract a larger percentage of existing oil. <snippa more pessimism>

Both of which - and especially the latter of which - requires the expenditure of resources. Let's not wrangle over semantics, here.

Well, well; how depressing. Though I guess one of us will be able to say "told you so" within a brief time - unless excuses are made for this prediction as for the ones made concerning exponential collapse in 1989 and 1995.

I already addressed that point, those predictions were made with flawed methods. Using Campbell's method always leads to a date which is a few years in the future. Hubbert's equations nailed the date for US production to within a year. In 1956 he predicted the peak would come in 1970. His prediction of a peak in 1995 for world production was off for two reasons, the OPEC oil embargo of the 70's and the Gulf War in the 90's. Both caused large extended cuts in production, without which the peak would've come a lot sooner. But once that's taken into account and the numbers re-crunched through the equations, the date comes out to 2005. Punching the numbers for any year after the Gulf War into the the equation and it comes up with 2005.

Yes, of course: it is not as if it is inconceivable that he may be rebutted or anything - what with opaque work and unproven assertions and all. What I find more objectionable is all these post-hoc excuses that keep emerging.

http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO:

BBCode, for some ridiculous reason, does not accept parenthesis in an URL: you'll have to copy-paste the whole line into the browser.

[Broomstick]

The infrastructure to build, service, and operate steam locomotives in the United States is completely gone.

Not entirely.

There are both train hobbiests that work on and restore trains, and the Amish and some Menomites still utilize steam technology. Granted, it's contracted quite a bit, but like horse and buggy makers these aren't entirely gone.

Between that small very group of tradesment and the existing examples in museums it would not be a matter of recreating this technology from scratch but rather revitalizing it. It would NOT be as great an effort to restore the tech as it was to create it in the first place.

Steam might well be a viable replacement for diesel-electric locomotives, but before it can be, we need to rebuild the factories, the repair facilities, even the watering stations along the lines.

Well, fuck ANY alternative to petroleum is going to require that! Should we just throw up our hands and surrender now? For that matter, converting from whale oil to coal oil for lighting required a whole new infrastructure, but it happened anyway, didn't it?

But one of my points is that this isn't creating something wholly new, it's recreating something that existed and was successful. The second time around we can avoid mistakes and blind alleys the originators had to deal with along the way.

And we need to train a workforce to do it.

Fortunately, much of the labor involved doesn't require advanced education, just a strong back. Which we have. In fact, we have more of that sort of labor than we can currently utilize.

It's possible, especially now while we're flush with cash, but if we wait until a crisis comes, the surplus needed to build that infrastructure again won't be there.

Bullshit. It wasn't like there was a shitload of cash floating around when the railroads were first built. The US network, as an example, would NEVER have been built without heavy government subsidies. In many cases, again, it's not a matter of laying track wholly new but rather re-laying track in abadoned right-of-ways where the ground has been leveled, cleared, and the worst inclines moderated. Routes over mountains have already been mapped out. We could lay rails through some of the tunnels that interstates currently use if we were desparate enough, without having to blast new ones.

There's a difference between starting something entirely new and reviving something that already exists or existed.

Chicago is, sadly, in the minority in having a robust commuter rail system

I don't find it sad at all... but then, I'm a beneficiary of the system.

We're also in the minority in that about 1/4 of the suburban rail lines and all of the El/subway are electric, and a significant portion of our electric power is nuclear in origin. We are already less dependent on oil for transportation in this area than most are. And while our gas prices are high, they aren't nearly as high as in NYC or Los Angeles and I have to wonder if part of the reason is that people have alteratives to cars. This both lowers the demand for gas, taking speculative pressures off, and provides a true competitive incentive to sell it at a reaonably (for conditions) low price.

and dense enough suburbs to make it practical (because the suburbs grew up around the rail lines). What happens to Phoenix, or Houston, or Los Angeles? Or even the people out in Chicago's exurbs, where settlement is too widespread to make a rail or even a bus line practical?

You set up terminal stations that act as small scale transportation hubs, which we already do here. So instead of people driving 40 miles into Chicago every day they only drive 5-10, park, then take the train the rest of the way. As I do - my one-way commuting distance is 45 miles. I drive about 15 miles a day instead of 90 and that significantly reduces my burden on the petroleum supply (my train is electric, and thus part nuclear-driven). We call 'em "park and ride" and "kiss and ride" (for when you drop someone off at the train, but don't park). These were built after the 1960's, and the system is continuing to expend as the population density of various exurbs increases. Curerntly, Indiana is in the process of securing captial funding to extend the South Shore Rail Road south into the exurbs and also to seek more customers for its frieght operations. Metra - the Illinois commuter rail - is planning to build more lines, and is expanding its current facilities to accomodate increased capacity. It shows that this is possible. Does it turn a profit? Fuck no - but then neither does the Interstate system. Both require government subsidy. It's just that people are so accustomed to paying the road taxes they no longer consider them in cost/benefit equations - but they're there.

What may end up happening is that all those exurban McMansions with their half-acre of lawn and three car garages have to be sold by their owners at a loss because the middle class will not be able to afford 90 minute commutes by car anymore.

With parking costs alone topping $240/month in downtown Chicago - plus gas and other vehicle costs - this has been the case in Chicago for at least a decade, probably two or more. It hasn't stopped people moving to the suburbs, or shortened anyone's commute. It HAS made the middle class support a commuter transit system.

Those who live in the city - well, it's common to have a driver's license but not own a car. It's a strategy I used for 15 years. You use mass transit to get around the city, and if you need a car you rent one - because over the long haul it's cheaper to rent for the occassional weekend than try to own/maintain permanently. Would it take some mental adjustment? Sure. But my point is that the very American Chicagoans have adapted to this - did so years ago, in fact - and thus it is demonstrated as a valid possibility.

Contraction is, I think, inevitable, unless we come up with a replacement for the internal combustion engine which lets people keep their cars.

Chicagoland demonstrates that you CAN part people from their cars, at least for routine workday commuting. And just doing that would make a significant dent in the problem.

I can easily take care of all my driving needs on 10 gallons of gas (that's about 40 liters) in a month. If I had to, I could probably stretch that 5-6 weeks. It's a combination of mass transit, a fuel efficient vehicle, and using my head in regards to running errands. Compare that to someone who drives an SUV every day 25 miles a each way to work. A gallon of gas lasts me two days of commuting to the train for work. Mr. SUV require two gallons just to get to work - he's burning petrol at four times the rate I am. IF we could cut everyone back to my level of use demand for gasoline would drop by 75%. That's HUGE. Of course, we aren't going to be that successful, but it shows there is considerable slack in the system. As prices squeeze consumers harder they'll adjust/adapt. There will be pain, but it's not the slam-into-a-brick-wall scenario some of the doomsayers promote.

If we plan for it, it might end up working out for the better (I confess to being a New Urbanist here). If we don't, it's going to be an enormous social problem. I actually wouldn't mind seeing most of the suburbs get returned to nature, but I want to see it done carefully and because Americans' attitudes shift, not because middle class homeowners can't afford to drive to work anymore.

I can't afford to drive to work - that's why I take the train.

In fact, in this area, driving into the Loop is seen as crazy, unless you have an overriding motive for foregoing mass transit. Doctors, for instance, who have to be at work at the hospital regardless of weather/transit conditions. Which is why hospitals subsidize parking for critical staff, or even provide apartments where they can stay nearby while on call or if the weather creates dangerous travel situations. The City of Chicago drops transit rides to one penny on New Year's Eve, which goes a long way to keeping drunks off the street. Well, it keeps driving drunks off the street.

Chicago never experienced a shift to the use of cars exclusively, which gives Chciago an advantage. I suspect NYC is the same. People who move to those cities from elsewhere usually adapt within a matter of months. Such adaptations are not insurmountable obstacles. Particularly when they discover such benefits as being able to nap on the train. Of course, that requires a certain safety on the train, but the fact it's not uncommon around here indicates a certain comfort level. In fact, the biggest hazard with Chicago's commuter rail is the unfortunate habit of some travelers to walk in front of moving trains which results in a much higher level of mortality and morbidity than criminal assaults on the system.

People can be ignorant and stupid, but they will also make use of alternatives if those alternatives are viable and reasonable.

I wonder if we might start seeing nuclear powered container ships in the future. They're certainly big enough for one to be economical (though they might need a larger crew than oil burners--certainly it would have to be better trained).

There is also the issue of keeping the technology secure. A nuclear powered ship might not be able to generate weapons-grade material but it sure could provide parts for a dirty bomb. And piracy is a problem that has never gone away. Nukes for motive power works for the military, because a fully armed warship is fucking hard to pirate. Not so civilian container ships.

But it is an idea and a possibility.

I don't know the specifics of aviation's energy economy, so I may be wrong, but the way I see it, unless a major breakthrough happens

Depends on how you define "major". FADEC technology can drop fuel consumption by as much as half (although 30-40% is more typical) when retrofitted to older engines AND it reduces engine wear and maintenance, not to mention emissions (because less fuel is burned more completely)

FADEC and improved materials production has also made possible diesel aircraft engines, which have been certified and in use in Europe for several years now. That is opening the way to multi-fuel engines and possibily biodiesel for aircraft. None of which is a pancea, of course - but we got into this mess because we all became over-dependent on using just one fuel source. Diversification is a part of the answer, so the entire economy isn't tied to just one fuel source.

Aviation is so fuel greedy that they started making serious efforts toward economy and efficiency back in the 1970's. It is not a trivial matter in the industry. At present, there is no substituted for petroleum fuel for jet engines, so they have no choice but get more efficient.

people are going to have to get used to crossing the country in a week on a train instead of five hours in a jet, or give up the idea of routine transcontinental (and transoceanic) travel completely.

Or just get used to paying more. Air travel used to be a LOT more expensive relative to income than it is today. Part of the reason airlines are in such a mess right now is that they are undercutting each others' prices to the point of bankruptcy.

the days when someone like me can get to San Francisco and back in five hours for less than $300 may be numbered.

And possibily never should have arrived. For long-term economic viability, $300 for a coast-to-coast trip is way too low. I forget what the true cost per seat-mile for the airlines is, but that's what fares should be based on. If it costs $0.07/mile to transport you in a B747 from New York to San Francisco and back, then it should cost more like $500 - and that's BEFORE taxes and fees. We need those taxes and fees, because in the US those are what support the air traffic control and weather forecasting systems that help make your flight a safe one. Then there's the cost of security.... Round trip coast-to-coast at a fair price - that is, one that sustains the airlines long term without excessive profits - is closer to $700-1000 than $300. Your $300 ticket is an airline selling a seat at a loss - which is NOT a viable long-term busines strategy

TDP, biodiesel, coal oil, all that stuff can stretch the hydrocarbon supply and buy us time.

And there's nothing wrong with that... particularly if it cushions the shock transitioning to alternatives will cause.

Of course, that assumes people will act rationally and make such transitions. An almost impossible stretch. But as alternatives become more economically competitive such changes will be made.

Coal is a nonrenewable resource as well

Yeah, but there's a LOT of it and it's more evenly distrubuted world-wide than oil is (I think... if I recall... hey I'm not perfect).

biodiesel and TDP both depend on petroleum to generate the raw materials they turn into fuel. The thousands of tons of biomass and waste plastic that TDP converts into oil are made possible by petroleum. Alternative hydrocarbons are not a permanant solution.

Not at production levels required by our currently society and technology.

Biodiesel is not dependent on petroleum. It CAN exist without it... but at much lower production figures and THAT is the crux of the problem. It's not that the alternatives don't work, it's that they can't supply the current demand.

Which gets back to my theory that half the problem right now is that there are just too damn many people on the planet. If we had 1/10 the current population a LOT of resource and production issues would be greatly reduced. But while long-term a 90% population reduction might be a good thing, I don't know anyone (outside of a few nutjobs) who'd want to live through the short-term hell that it would requrie to drop populations to that level.

If we wait until there's a crisis, it may be impossible to spare the cash to do it.

It's not like mankind had a cash economy to begin with. All that had to be built in the first place. Of course, if we wait for the crisis the result might be that 90% population reduction I mentioned.

Or else we've achieved "peak tech" and that's that.

The transportation infrastructure in America is certainly stupid. However. You are assuming that no improvements in engine efficiency, such as hybrids, will emerge.

Where am I assuming that, dumbass? Do you think perhaps I've never watched television and I'm not aware of the hybrid? Hybrids stretch the fuel supply but they don't extend it indefinitely.

And yet, I'd argue there's a great deal of merit in "stretching the fuel supply".

And John Deere doesn't build those with hybrid engines.

He doesn't do so now, no.

Actually, if I recall the original John Deere equipment was horsedrawn, then steam. It's a company that has been able to adapt to such technological shifts in the past. Whether it still is capable of doing so today is an interesting question.