<Monday Open Thread The Oil Drum Well none of this is particularly good news!>

109 comments on Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Rick on December 5, 2005 - 10:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Stuart- Nice analysis.

It makes sense that the world decline would be slower than the US or UK--more diverse supply, and a lot of newer production coming on-line.

If this is anywhere close to correct, it will require a radical rethinking within the peak oil community. We'd average a mere 0.5% annual decline rate for the 1st post-peak decade, 1.5% for the second, and 2.5% for the third. There will be demand pressures, and local shortages and surpluses, of course. But we should be able to accomodate those sort of declines with simple, non-radical conservation efforts.

But oil-related greenhouse gases would remain high for decades, and the global economy keeps ticking along. Motoring may be easier, but the climate won't be so pleasant.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dan Ur on December 6, 2005 - 12:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The greenhouse gases are going to be there for up to 30 years if we stopped burning everything today.

So we should not worry so much about that aspect of this.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
panarchist on December 6, 2005 - 7:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Not sure I understand your logic here Dan Ur?  Because greenhouse gases are so persistent, it is the very reason why we should be worrying about climate change embedded within the context of oil/gas depletion.

In other words, once we see significant enough changes to the climate to cause the political will to shift toward greenhouse gas reductions, will will still only have scratched the surface of what those effects might become in the decades to follow.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dan Ur on December 6, 2005 - 6:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I was not trying to imply that we do nothing to reduce our use of OIL, but that in affect it won't matter a hill of beans what we now do.  The damage is already done and the systems are already changing.  We can HOPE for the best, but we should expect the WORST.

 Is not depression and gloom just a great way to spend a day.  (sarcasitic remark).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on December 6, 2005 - 1:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, and it gives us time to phase in a great deal of coal-to-liquids.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
panarchist on December 6, 2005 - 7:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree with everyone else...as usual Stuart has set the bar with his fantastic posts to TOD.  I'm glad to see some relatively optimistic news (by peak oil pessimist standards).

However, I'd like to bring attention to the Exxon Mobil projection that the world will need approximately 120-130 mbd of oil by 2030 to meet global demand assuming economic growth and energy growth rates continue at their average from the last 30 years.

What that means is that based on Stuart's modest net decline rates, if we are peaking in 2005 then we should have around 55-60 mbd available by 2030.  The difference between what we think we need (120-130 mbd) and what we may have available (55-60 mbd) is still a profoundly huge number.

I just don't see how it is possible to "grow" the human population, "grow" our (energetic) standard of living, nor "grow" our agricultural output during any degree of net decline, be it 5% or 15%.  All that said, I definitely like the direction Stuart is taking with his analysis and I'd recommend that the TOD community take a look at the book by H.T. Odum entitled, "A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0870816101/qid=1133867951/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-4213568-74776 23?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Stuart, I'm not as talented with the statistics as you...but do you have any thoughts about this post?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
billmasi on December 6, 2005 - 6:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Exxon Mobil projection that the world will need approximately 120-130 mbd of oil by 2030 to meet global demand assuming economic growth and energy growth rates continue at their average from the last 30 years."

AVERAGE world growth from 1975 to now projected out 25 years?

Automobile registrations in the United States went from 8,000 in 1900 to 902,000 in 1912.  The US population was 76 million at the time.

My guess is that Lee isn't letting the boys at Exxon project that kind of auto growth for China or India.

2 million cars were sold in China in 2003, an 80% increase over the prior year.  At the early US rate they'll have 225 million in twelve years.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

109 comments on Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version