Indeed...

But when water costs 150 dollars a barrel, things like pipelines and desalination plants might also cost more. This is the cranial fallacy most people make: they equate currency with value. The only currency worth anything now is oil. Time and time again one hears the continual myth that this and that alternative energy is just about to become 'affordable' once oil hits 80 ... a hundred ... or was it 120 dollars a barrel? Now we're at 140. Where are the promised, much hyped solarpanel farms reaching to the horizon? The coastlines dotted with endless windmills? The vast untapped mountains of 'unconventional' oil waiting to be dug in for endless oil? They are all victims to this fallacy. As the oil price has come up, so has everything else, from building materials (steel and copper) to manufacturing and transportation. At every step and stage and price of oil has inflated their costs and wiped away the competitive price difference. Tainter and the laws of unsubstitutability and diminishing marginal returns are here!

When oil barrel costs 200 - everything else will cost too much - and demand destruction will kick in to hold the price - for a while - since when you're past the peak, its all downhill from there - the question is - will demand destruction outpace production decline at any stage to actually lower the price - I'd say no IANAE/G

- Ransu

Crude oil as the liming factor for our complex civilization.

This is how it plays out. I'm no economist and don't know the proper terms or even if there's already a textbook that explains this much more throughoutly... (except maybe Tainter a little)

The principle of unsubstitutability states that as resource depletion progresses with increasing demands of growing population and complexity, a point is reached where ones abundant resource must be replaced by another either because it has peaked or because our demand has outpaced its extraction rate - the same thing really. Inevitably we always have a number of choices which are worse than the original - more expensive, less liquid, less plentiful, poor quality etc. And this keeps happening over and over again. This is the principle of unsubstitutability and no where is this more apparent and dramatic as in the case of crude oil - the golden liquid - only a few pence a cup - but able to transport us and our hunk of junk miles and miles.

Now that we have established that we are utterly dependent of crude oil, we can move on to the principle of diminishing returns. As our extraction rate becomes unsustainable and our hunger and dependence of the stuff just keeps going up, we inevitably start paying larger and larger share of our income, our scares resources, our opportunity - to this black liquid. The problem is that everything else is also dependent on the price of that liquid and the increases in costs go down the chain and branch out at every direction.

And now here's the catch that people miss out - there's a positive feedback from the mirror effects - when transportation costs increase due to increase in oil price, so will the transportation costs to do with surveying, drilling, pumping, refining, and distributing oil itself. In fact with every oil price increase, there will be a converging geometric series of price increases in all aspects of getting more black liquid, which will then echo back into the oil price and start down the same chain again. Currently following this loop back and forth fortunately converges towards zero - and it has to - because the only other mathematical alternative would be infinity - an infinite price for a barrel of oil.

Another way of putting it - and a much better way - which the economist don't like one bit - is to play this out in terms of Energy Returned on Energy Invested or EROEI. As our civilization matures towards a point where we spend all our time, energy and infrastructure just producing oil just to consume it - and consuming oil just to produce it - our other needs and become exceedingly expensive and downright impossible to meet. Food, water, housing, utilities, maintenance of infrastructure. And their complexity no longer produces more efficiency - so called advances in them merely patch up immediate emergency and creates more emergencies for the future. Deforestation, soil-depletion, water-scarcity, they haven't gone away, in fact they are getting worse as we head into the panic mode...

My personal estimate is - don't watch the oil price - watch the food prices - this is a Malthusian train heading for the Liebig's gorge - all cars are linked so its purely academic which of them crashed to the bottom first.

- Ransu

Inevitably we always have a number of choices which are worse than the original - more expensive, less liquid, less plentiful, poor quality etc.

Hold up here. This analysis falls flat when one considers whale oil VS kerosene.

It is possible the same can be said for wood VS coal - the volume of coal may have masked the dirty-ness VS wood.

Not to defend the entire argument that was being made BUT...

My take on it is that these things are neither good nor bad. It's basically a matter of what kind of stewards we are of the resources we have. This progression of resource usage versus our ability to discover replacements that won't destroy the other resources we depend upon, in a global economy with enormous momentum, is the real issue.

The era of cheap energy has fueled something spectacular comparative to all of human history. Civilizations have collapsed throughout history for many reasons including resource depletion. So it's not a stretch to imagine an economic butterfly effect with oil at the root of it. The world isn't going to disappear and the entire population won't die due to energy issues. However, things can get very bad, very quickly if we don't catch some lucky breaks along the way.

For all of the technology we have and for as much as humankind has evolved, we still are babes in the woods as far as societal structures are concerned. We've come a long way, but act too big for our britches (so to speak). I don't believe in complete doom and gloom after the Y2K fiasco. I don't have a great deal of respect for certain people in the community who are making money off of it either. I won't name names, but the are people who were in it for a buck back then and they are in the peak oil debate for a quick buck now.

I think it's good that a debate is taking place because it's our complacency that endangers us more than peak oil, nuclear states, or chicken hawk neocons in government. It's easy to believe something that is self defeating when we have imperfect knowledge of all the factors in play.

Now that we have established that we are utterly dependent of crude oil

no we aren't. it's only 30% of our energy and we waste half of it just going to work by ourselves in big huge cars. we have plenty of fat to trim. electricity, conservation and demand destruction will ensure plenty of oil to get us where we need to go.h

Plastics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, pesticides. nuff said.

Plastics, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, pesticides. nuff said.

we have recycling, reducing and reusing. we can make lubricants with other materials.

Don't you think the whales and seals have suffered enough in the past?

Yep.

The rapeseed plant hasn't finished it's suffering yet, nor have soybeans.

Graphite makes an excellent lubricant in very small quantities.

We have plenty of resources for our needs, it's just that most people have needs and wants mixed up and think they need that 40" flat screen TV.

t people make: they equate currency with value. The only currency worth anything now is oil. Time and time again one hears the continual myth that this and that alternative energy is just about to become 'affordable' once oil hits 80 ... a hundred ... or was it 120 dollars a barrel? Now we're at 140. Where are the promised, much hyped solarpanel farms reaching to the horizon? The coastlines dotted with endless windmills?

have you followed solar stocks lately? they have zoomed up? solar and wind are growing at phenomenal rates. however, change won't happen overnight and I think you're setting up a straw man with the "endless" windmills.

do you see boone pickens is building huge windmills? that the largest windmill ever has just been constructed?

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/enercon_e126_largest_wind_turbin...

T. Boone Pickens Gets Into The Texas Wind: 4,000 Mega-Watts Worth
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/t_boone_pickens.php

or my my favorite, solar on big box stores! the irony.

Turning Big Box Stores into Solar Power Plants in California
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/big-box-stores-roofs-solar-power...

those much derided big box stores that peak oil is supposed to do away with may actually be little power plants. some day they may be big greenhouses that grow food with solar panels on the roof. btw- electricity can be used as a fuel. you take you electric bike to wal-mart to buy food and charge off the panels while you're there. brilliant.

ins of 'unconventional' oil waiting to be dug in for endless oil? They are all victims to this fallacy. As the oil price has come up, so has everything else, from building materials (steel and copper) to manufacturing and transportation. At every step and stage and price of oil has inflated their costs and wiped away the competitive price difference.

the price of commodities tend to run together. most mines, even in the this era of high oil prices, are now opening up because the costs of commodities has gone up. they won't always run up at the same time but if mining costs are too high the mine shuts down until they come back in line. we must remember that there is always the demand side of the equation too. as the costs of oil has skyrocketing gypsum board and lumber are mired in the doldrums. we had a surplus of lumber even though oil is high. the companies are eating the costs and some will go out of business until supply and demand are back in balance.

When oil barrel costs 200 - everything else will cost too much - and demand destruction will kick in to hold the price - for a while - since when you're past the peak, its all downhill from there

can you actually prove that using a public companies earnings and annual reports?