 | World Oil Exports [02] Libya | The Oil Drum | No Naked Short Selling => No Short Selling at All => No Future Energy? |  |
218 comments on DrumBeat: September 19, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
218 comments on DrumBeat: September 19, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The first person who says to me "but nobody said that fossil fuels would run out" gets a biff on the nose.
To be fair I've already had someone say that they didn't really believe me when I said there was a peak around the corner (said in 2001), but when they saw $100 they remembered my prediction. It seemed so remote then.
Also got 9/11 ahead of time and a number of others. No pandemic yet and no impact of the demographic timebomb being noticed either. The dissolution of US is still on track.
The problem is always timing. Buffett issued his warning five years ago...long enough for people to assume he was wrong. Similarly, the first warnings about the dot-com boom came three years in...and the crash didn't come for another three years. So the party went on twice as long as the Cassandras expected. I sometimes wonder if it will be the same with peak oil.
There's that famous FEMA report, that came out in 2001, that predicted the three biggest and most likely catastrophes: a terrorist attack on NYC, a Cat. 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans, and a major quake hitting San Francisco. The terrorist attack happened shortly after the report came out, and Katrina came in 2005. You'd think this would worry the residents of SF, but they don't seem all that concerned.
There is a nice RAND report about the impact of a container nuke in SF (which has about the same probability of occurrence as an earthquake). Insurance turned out to be the big bugbear - which is interesting given AIG.
I'm sure such a thing would be considered a bigger shock, whereas everyone that lives there expects the quake.
We've built a system and a society that has little resilience at its heart. People aren't expecting large scale disasters, whereas simple stats should say they should prepare to cope with one every few years.
While an earthquake in San Francisco would be catastrophic, its effects on the nation would be comparatively limited relative to one in Los Angeles. Because the Port of Los Angeles is our major Pacific import/export port, 65% of all interstate truck traffic originates from the Los Angeles area. While diversion is possible, the disruption of the flow of trade would be immensely problematic. On November 13, there is going to be the largest earthquake drill in U.S. history in southern California.
Learn more here:
The Great Southern California Shakeout
Yes. The FEMA report took into account what was most likely. Apparently, they think the Big One is more likely to hit SF than LA.
The BIG one will be the Cascadia subduction zone quake centred just NW of Washington state. Forecast to be 9.75 on the richter scale, affecting Vancouver, Seattle and Portland, and it is supposed to be the most expensive natural disaster in history. Last I heard, they figured there would be a 10% chance of it happening this century.
When I first met PO, the date was set at 2005. Now it is 2010. Rembrandt says it will be 2012-2015, so yes, it will take longer to happen then initially anticipated. (though what is 7 years?)
And Katrina hit NO as a Cat 4, not a Cat 5 huricane. Another time maybe?
Katrina hit as a Cat. 3, but she was a Cat. 5 earlier, and brought a Cat. 5 storm surge.
Right. Thanks for the correction.
Global oil production crossed the 84 mbpd line in 2004. In the 4 years since then global population has grown by over 300 million yet global oil production has grown by a measly 1.5 mbpd or so.
So putting that as a percentage, global oil production has grown 1.7% despite prices quadrupling while population grew by over 4.5%
This is definitely Robert Rapier's "peak lite" scenario and it looks like it is happening just as we are reaching the crest of global production anyway. And on a 200-250 year total production curve, what's a year or three difference in picking the exact peak date mean anyway? Mere semantics.
plus the net is far less. even if measured in dollars. we are at marginal cost of oil and gas (in north america) now. so we will continue to pull out the cheap stuff found long ago. peak date a)is not the relevant question and b)due to banking/finance crisis is cemented in - rembrandt will have to adjust his numbers later this year..
It looks to me like the jury is still out on the exact "Peak Date" with 2005 still being in the running.
Barring truly unexpected growth in production we appear to be solidly into a 3+ year peak plateau where the exact peak production date will probably never be known any closer than +/- 1 year in any event.
The peak of true significance is peak net energy. It doesn't matter if you increase production, if net energy declines mean that less energy is available to run the global economy. Deepwater oil, tar sands, heavy oil, and most enhanced recover techniques like water injection all require extra energy to get the same volume of oil.
We've been on a gross production plateau since 2005, but net energy has been going down since then, or maybe a little before. IMO, using basing one's understanding on gross oil production is the most common mistake in oil analysis.
"The peak of true significance is peak net energy."
I heartily second that, and would only add, as GreyZone discusses above, that growing population means that peak net per capita is already behind us.
Quibbling over the exact point of peak oil just confuses the issue. The point is, unless there is a sudden upsurge in oil production in the next couple of years, we are at peak oil right now and have been at that point for a little over three years. What no one expected was this plateau. It could go on for two or three more years but it is still the peak oil plateau and it is happening right now!
Non-OPEC production has been on a plateau for five years. However 2008 will be the year of lowest non-OPEC production since 2003. It appears that non-OPEC production is sliding off its five year plateau. World production however may have a while to run on its plateau but it will now be much harder to stay there since non-OPEC production is trending downward.
But don't fret about the exact month of maximum peak production because it simply does not matter, it simply clouds the matter and detracts from the fact that we are on the peak plateau right now.
Ron Patterson
I agree with Ron that we are on the plateau right now and that trying to time it precisely is not very productive. And a global recession/depression could even further cloud the issue by
The most obvious signal for most folks that peak oil is happening would be the price of gasoline. That seems like an external phenomenon. If the price goes down in a depression but folks can't afford it because they lost their job, well, that seems like a personal problem. Hyperinflation, on the other hand, would seem like a problem with the treasury but not necessarily with energy supplies.
It's difficult for folks to see the relationship between peak oil, banking and the economy especially when the MSM is telling them Peak Oil is 'just a theory'.
It's my personal belief that showing folks data graphics with production curves for various nations and fields is the best way to convince thinking people that we have a problem right now. I'm not sure how to convince the masses, however.
Happy Exploring!
-- Jon
It already is.
People have been sounding the peak oil alarm for literally decades. They've been wrong for, literally, decades. Yet we know that at some point they'll be right, as oil is finite and hence must eventually peak.
If one wishes to actually provide warning or education, it's important to distinguish between "prescient" and "persistent". Saying "peak will happen" is prescient - it's providing a valuable insight, and not making unwarranted claims. Saying "peak is now" is making a bold claim, and making it over and over and over until at long last it happens to be true is just persistence.
Even a stopped clock is eventually right, but only long after people have given up on paying attention to it.
No, it isn't. Because we have not yet reached the point where everyone admits that peak oil is real, and has happened, and we were stupid for not worrying about earlier. We may never reach that point.
If we do, then we can determine if the party went on for twice as long as Hubbert, etc., predicted.
I can say with confidence that we will never reach the point where everyone admits that peak oil is real.
The fact that American oil peaked in 1970 is still denied.
How many of us here know that English coal peaked in 1913?
The deforestation of Europe for cooking, shipbuilding, and housing is still widely denied, hundreds of years later.
In New England you'll find very few people who believe in peak cod, either.
The human mind, it seems, has a blind spot for resource depletion.
Well, "everyone" is probably not reasonable. But even peak oilers still disagree about whether we are at peak oil or not.
I'll settle for as much acceptance as AGW has.