It would be interesting to compare the various predictions for North Sea production, versus what the HL model would have predicted.
I believe that we are seeing a similar divergence between the conventional wisdom regarding Saudi Arabia and what the HL model predicts. Right now, the production data fit the HL model.
Almost everyone in the Texas oil patch--except for a handful of people who believed Hubbert--was shocked when Texas production fell instead of increasing, after the RRC went to a 100% allowable.
WT, I just wish the real position of KSA and world production wasn't buried in political BS. Khebab's analysis is so good because he tries to scientificially present everyone's position without judgement.
The worst disservice to the human race right now is the politicalization of issues of scientific fact. We're now another 6 or 8 years into climate change because of this craziness
You have to seperate GW from peak oil. They have little to do with each other. Just look at how much coal is being burned for electric power generation and other purposes. And coal is much worse in terms of CO2/unit energy than oil. We would be much better off if we could replace all coal with hydrocarbons, be it from oil or natural gas.
As for the politics of it: energy waste is a political problem, not a geological one. If you want to solve it you have to talk politics, not science.
GW gives climate change and a need for more fuel for airconditioning, massive infrastructure change and new farming conditions.
Peak Oil gives a shift from natural gas and sweet light oil to heavy oil, tar sands, coal and lower EROEI proceses giving far more CO2 emissions per m3 of ready to use fuel.
These two threats accelerate each other in a scary way.
Why do we need more fuel for AC? Air conditioning is mostly needed on days with plenty of sunshine, thus it can be easily covered with solar energy. Not to forget that a lot of AC problems really can be solved with a ceiling fan. Ugly but effective.
The "massive infrastructure change" needed to combat GW is not much different from that needed for PO. Both can most effectively be attacked with conservation and renewables. Sure... there are a lot of desperate ideas floating around about CO2 sequestration but that is all theory on the scale needed. Wind and solar can be made reality in no time.
I agree that GW might succumb to the desperation about PO. Which is why it is even more important to seperate the two issues and solve GW first. Its solution automatically includes the correct solutions to the PO problem, while the opposite is not true.
I find it more likely that people will live with global warming and use all available energy sources to muddle thru rather then solving the GW problem.
You might be dissapointed. People do learn. It just takes a long time. It took two decades in Europe to establish a certain amount of environmental sensibility. China obviously is learning the hard way that their environment if a finite resource. And the US... well, the US will probably have to learn it the hard way, too, although it is obvious that there are enough knowledgable people out there who understand. What it will take, though, to reach the masses is advertising. That and higher energy prices, of course. We will see both.
What I find the hardest to accept about both the GW and the PO problem is that all serious solutions will require decades to actually show any effect at all. For someone with a short attention span that is torture. And I am sure that a lot of people emotionally link the impossibility for short-term succes to really bad long term odds.
GW is caused by us burning too much carbon and the fact that CO2 is a GHG. PO is caused by the geological finiteness of hydrocarbons. GW can exist independently of PO and burning hydrocarbons alone would cause much less GW per unit energy than if we used carbon.
The problem really begins to be real when people are trying to solve PO without any regards to GW by converting coal to hydrocarbons. Now that would be a catastrophy and I hope we have the sanity not to do that.
I agree with the conclusion that they stem from the same problem: greed.
You have an Infinitely Simplistic view of the global conditions.
You say .."oh we will just do this and then do that and we will be fine"....
"Just cut half the sheet metal off our cars and we can drive all we want."
Who needs AC when the sun is shining just use PV and solar cells. Like 'boom' , their in place..let the good times roll.
Tell me...that good stuff your puffing on...can I get some so I can quit worrying about life? Sixty eight years at this and a whippersnapper , snapping his whipper tells how to live thru the worst diaster in the worlds history with just a few motley phrases.
Were you here during the 70's? I was. In the middle of madness on a day when the oil embargo was announced. You likely were not. You have no clue as to what it was like nor what it will be like.
I don't remember saying "boom". I remember saying that it will be expensive and that we need a tax to pay for the expenses. Just as we needed taxes to pay the expensive for all the other energy infrastructure we already have. No more, no less. Except, maybe, that people were not aware how much that infrastructure did cost them over the decades. You don't normally think about these things, I guess, and now they come at a surprise. Is that what it is?
"Were you here during the 70's?"
Sure. I remember seeing empty highways and I remember living through it with no damage whatsoever, just like everyone else. Where was that global catastrophy back then? What happened? We are still here, spending $450 billion for Christmas. So what was the big deal? Can you tell me? That you won't be able to get the toys you want for Christmas for a couple of years? Is that what it is?
"You have no clue as to what it was like nor what it will be like."
Sure I do. It will be the day when I will have difficulty getting a seat on the train. Big deal. Not.
It will be the day when people will wake up and ask themselves why they had to buy that stupid SUV.
It will be the day they discover that the two sticks attached to their body are for walking and that there is a store in the neighbourhood they can walk to.
It will be the day a lot of bikes will get a second lease on life.
And then people will figure out that putting three more colleagues into their SUV every fourth day can cut their commute cost by a factor of almost four.
And that if enough people will share rides, they will get to work almost twice as fast because there won't be any congested highways.
And a week later there will be plenty of gas again at the gas station, again. Big deal...
PO does not mean we are running out of oil. It means we are running out of cheap oil.
It means that wasting it will come at a price that will make you think twice instead of not at all. Big deal. Some people think about it twice already.
Not out of necessity but out of a feeling of responsibility. That is not a big deal, either, just a function of maturity and how you were brought up.
Of course, thinking sometimes leads to headaches, so I expect aspirin to sell well during those weeks.
Are suffering from Angst about the future? I am sorry to hear that, but a lot of people do. You are not alone. A shrink can help with the Angst and a smaller car can help with the cost of gas. The shrink will be a lot more expensive than the cost of gas, even if you keep driving that Hummer.
Don't get me wrong... this is not about me knowing everything. This is about me not being afraid. This is about me looking forward to things that are not completely knowable. To me the spice of life is what hides behind the next corner and the corner after that. PO is nothing to be afraid off. It has been behind that corner for fifty years. In other words... you could have known about it since you are 18, it was not exactly a government secret... and you mean to tell me you didn't?
world population is playing a big role in this too as well as immigration shifts into civilized nations as we all witness the strains. It can only get worse!
Squalish mentioned New York City traffic will be in a congested gridlock 24/7 by the year 2030. right here
remembering the 70's traffic is one thing, but bear in mind, world population has doubled since around 1960. only 45 years ago! And we are all more prosperous, i.e more cars on the road!
While science and medicine help us live longer, it also changes the balance of world population to the positive! i mean positive as in more people!
Undoubtedly. But world population does not change anything about the fact that hydrocarbons are a limited resource. The problem would be exactly the same if we ran out of oil a hundred years from now - we would still have to find a replacement and change our infrastructure.
This is not about why this is happening or what variable is to blame most. This is about how to solve the resulting problems.
Again, prosperity and the number of cars one owns do not go hand in hand. An old saying that I know goes like this:
First of all, let me put a few things in perspective.
Gas in my neighborhood is currently $2.25/gallon.
With adjustments for the CPI, that is $1.97/gallon in 1999 dollars.
I think everyone here agrees that the CPI measure is totally bogus, and likely underestimating inflation by half. That would put us at $1.69/gallon if we could still buy gas with 1999 dollars.
If you then factor in the 16% drop of the USD over the past 6 years (the USD Index was right around 100 in 1999, and is at 83.65 today) gas is selling at $1.41.
Yes it's up a little bit, but not nearly as much as it seems.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
-->
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
I believe that we are seeing a similar divergence between the conventional wisdom regarding Saudi Arabia and what the HL model predicts. Right now, the production data fit the HL model.
Almost everyone in the Texas oil patch--except for a handful of people who believed Hubbert--was shocked when Texas production fell instead of increasing, after the RRC went to a 100% allowable.
The worst disservice to the human race right now is the politicalization of issues of scientific fact. We're now another 6 or 8 years into climate change because of this craziness
As for the politics of it: energy waste is a political problem, not a geological one. If you want to solve it you have to talk politics, not science.
GW gives climate change and a need for more fuel for airconditioning, massive infrastructure change and new farming conditions.
Peak Oil gives a shift from natural gas and sweet light oil to heavy oil, tar sands, coal and lower EROEI proceses giving far more CO2 emissions per m3 of ready to use fuel.
These two threats accelerate each other in a scary way.
The "massive infrastructure change" needed to combat GW is not much different from that needed for PO. Both can most effectively be attacked with conservation and renewables. Sure... there are a lot of desperate ideas floating around about CO2 sequestration but that is all theory on the scale needed. Wind and solar can be made reality in no time.
I agree that GW might succumb to the desperation about PO. Which is why it is even more important to seperate the two issues and solve GW first. Its solution automatically includes the correct solutions to the PO problem, while the opposite is not true.
In the local debate I advocate investments that have more benefits then only lowering the CO2 emissions, there are plenty of such opportunities.
What I find the hardest to accept about both the GW and the PO problem is that all serious solutions will require decades to actually show any effect at all. For someone with a short attention span that is torture. And I am sure that a lot of people emotionally link the impossibility for short-term succes to really bad long term odds.
Any idea what do about that?
The problem really begins to be real when people are trying to solve PO without any regards to GW by converting coal to hydrocarbons. Now that would be a catastrophy and I hope we have the sanity not to do that.
I agree with the conclusion that they stem from the same problem: greed.
You say .."oh we will just do this and then do that and we will be fine"....
"Just cut half the sheet metal off our cars and we can drive all we want."
Who needs AC when the sun is shining just use PV and solar cells. Like 'boom' , their in place..let the good times roll.
Tell me...that good stuff your puffing on...can I get some so I can quit worrying about life? Sixty eight years at this and a whippersnapper , snapping his whipper tells how to live thru the worst diaster in the worlds history with just a few motley phrases.
Were you here during the 70's? I was. In the middle of madness on a day when the oil embargo was announced. You likely were not. You have no clue as to what it was like nor what it will be like.
"Were you here during the 70's?"
Sure. I remember seeing empty highways and I remember living through it with no damage whatsoever, just like everyone else. Where was that global catastrophy back then? What happened? We are still here, spending $450 billion for Christmas. So what was the big deal? Can you tell me? That you won't be able to get the toys you want for Christmas for a couple of years? Is that what it is?
"You have no clue as to what it was like nor what it will be like."
Sure I do. It will be the day when I will have difficulty getting a seat on the train. Big deal. Not.
It will be the day when people will wake up and ask themselves why they had to buy that stupid SUV.
It will be the day they discover that the two sticks attached to their body are for walking and that there is a store in the neighbourhood they can walk to.
It will be the day a lot of bikes will get a second lease on life.
And then people will figure out that putting three more colleagues into their SUV every fourth day can cut their commute cost by a factor of almost four.
And that if enough people will share rides, they will get to work almost twice as fast because there won't be any congested highways.
And a week later there will be plenty of gas again at the gas station, again. Big deal...
PO does not mean we are running out of oil. It means we are running out of cheap oil.
It means that wasting it will come at a price that will make you think twice instead of not at all. Big deal. Some people think about it twice already.
Not out of necessity but out of a feeling of responsibility. That is not a big deal, either, just a function of maturity and how you were brought up.
Of course, thinking sometimes leads to headaches, so I expect aspirin to sell well during those weeks.
Are suffering from Angst about the future? I am sorry to hear that, but a lot of people do. You are not alone. A shrink can help with the Angst and a smaller car can help with the cost of gas. The shrink will be a lot more expensive than the cost of gas, even if you keep driving that Hummer.
Don't get me wrong... this is not about me knowing everything. This is about me not being afraid. This is about me looking forward to things that are not completely knowable. To me the spice of life is what hides behind the next corner and the corner after that. PO is nothing to be afraid off. It has been behind that corner for fifty years. In other words... you could have known about it since you are 18, it was not exactly a government secret... and you mean to tell me you didn't?
Squalish mentioned New York City traffic will be in a congested gridlock 24/7 by the year 2030. right here
remembering the 70's traffic is one thing, but bear in mind, world population has doubled since around 1960. only 45 years ago! And we are all more prosperous, i.e more cars on the road!
While science and medicine help us live longer, it also changes the balance of world population to the positive! i mean positive as in more people!
how does that saying go?
Careful what you wish for! It might come true.
This is not about why this is happening or what variable is to blame most. This is about how to solve the resulting problems.
Again, prosperity and the number of cars one owns do not go hand in hand. An old saying that I know goes like this:
"One arse can only ride on one horse at a time."
Gas in my neighborhood is currently $2.25/gallon.
With adjustments for the CPI, that is $1.97/gallon in 1999 dollars.
I think everyone here agrees that the CPI measure is totally bogus, and likely underestimating inflation by half. That would put us at $1.69/gallon if we could still buy gas with 1999 dollars.
If you then factor in the 16% drop of the USD over the past 6 years (the USD Index was right around 100 in 1999, and is at 83.65 today) gas is selling at $1.41.
Yes it's up a little bit, but not nearly as much as it seems.