There was a report in the respected medical journal The Lancet some years ago that performed a statistical analysis of excess deaths from all causes in Iraq in the five years after the 'liberation'.

The figure they came up with was over one million, out of a population of about 20 million. Most due to failure of medical care and malnutrition. The report was condemned and dismissed universally by Western politicians, and defended to the hilt by the scientific establishment.

The US has not suffered seriously in resource wars yet. Other countries have not been so lucky.

At the top they have access to the smartest people in the world, and they have the inside data on peak resources.  I think that some up there may be starting to "get it".  Almost certainly the smart people up there keep abreast of developments and analyses looking for a balance between profitable paths and stable paths.   I think the work of many in the peak resource sciences does help to enlighten them.  In the past they may have favored profit, but if they start seeing the big picture, they might conclude that it is in their best interest (and in the mutual best interests of others) to act to favor stability irregardless of monetary cost in preventing or delaying contagion or a Seneca effect collapse.

Many of the people at the top are probably very concerned and thinking about ways to preserve stability. I think they are smart enough to try to avoid any types of escalation where war with any BNC exchange occurs is a likely losing proposition to everyone.  They may rattle sabers for psychological effect especially on the periphery, but the MAD of the major powers will likely prohibit that from coming into play.  The super rich may have super yachts that can go to sea on or go to remote areas followed by their dedicated oil tankers, and the governments may have their underground shelters, but if they really need to do that then the status quo will be gone, and they will likely face degradations and losses of technology and modern benefits over time that will almost assure that their children's future would within a few generations be a totally agrarian one, with little hope of a rebirth of the industrial age for tens if not hundreds of millions of years until the earth can make more fossil fuel.  

If the governments and financiers realize that resource wars (where infrastructure and resources are likely to be lost and may likely never be replaced) is a lose, lose path forward, that may prevent them from taking the path of war.  But how does one manage from the top a structurally forced contraction of the economy for stability, while preserving the status quo?  I think that austerity measures was the less risky path for them to take but they likely knew that it would only work well for a while.  

If an austerity approach doesn't work well, TPTB will likely try to implement command economies.  But doing so in a heavy handed way during a period where there is a concurrent structurally forced contraction due to declining inputs may lead to a collapse/Seneca scenario if the general population doesn't buy in.   And if the financial system becomes unstable and quickly crashes then high unemployment could easily lead to a collapse/Seneca scenario.  So maybe an approach where the truth is revealed, with assurances of stability, food, clothing, and shelter are guaranteed, but where discretionary spending is somehow limited, could get buy in from the general population and preserve stability while ZPG or negative PG is implemented, and while a Manhattan sized project to develop fusion, renewables, and alternates is put in place.  If America, Russia, China, Saudi, Germany, England, etc all get on board for it, they might get buy in.  But if if just looks like a NWO without heart and just a financial narrative, the chances of buy in from the general population will be low.  A compelling narrative would help to get buy in, and help a stable transition.  

The recent concerns of the militaries about economic affects does indicate that some of the important actors are getting it.  And anybody with inside data for major oil fields that might be declining soon or are already declining is probably well aware of the anxiety of their customers, and thinking forward to what the future will likely hold.  After all, the super rich does have the business mindset and that mindset does concern itself with forward looking statements.  We just need to expand their forward looking concerns past profits and more toward relative benefits and stability. 

But there are risks in changing the economic narrative from growth to a call for conservation and stability. Actions that would promote stability (at the cost of the perceived need to have growth) would affect business models. The existing debt and credit business models would be affected by the paradigm shift.

If contraction does become structurally forced due to resource constraints and changes to the status quo become large enough, then the TPTB may be willing to risk a paradigm shift favoring stability.  But they would likely wait until the push back to a paradigm shift is perceived to be similar in scale and scope to the effects of growing austerity before acting.

I don't think that rationing gets us there alone.  In a way isn't austerity just a form of rationing that attempts to preserve the status quo while hiding the weakness in the debt and credit markets being forced by resource constraints?  Eventually, the top of the pyramid may attempt a restructure that is based on the truth and a realistic and constructive assessment.

"It might be possible that the rising generation of kids will turn their backs on the car culture....."

Now we are getting to the rub. Americans are their cars. It is not our fault as individiuals, it is because of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

How can someone still justify running around and around in circles at faster and faster speeds with the imminent threat of a spectacular crash? That's the attraction of NASCAR. Why do we care so much about hundreths of a second? Because they are amplified through our culture into Billions of Dollars.

What exactly are all the Chinese people saving for anyway? A better life, surely, and for most of them that life includes a personal vehicle. One where you don't have to pedal, and you don't get wet or sweaty using it.

Somone once pointed out to me that the stories we tell ourselves is how we think about problems. What I mean is, Aesop's fables are short lessons on how to understand and deal with the world that can be passed on through word of mouth.

We are in desperate need of some new stories. The ones we have now don't fit reality anymore.

Exactly...even the alternatives to oil are facing real constraints.

As a followup to "Global oil risks in the early 21st century" (Energy Policy, Volume 39, Issue 12, December 2011 pre-print version) the same writing team has begun work on assessing how well CTL could provide significant liquid fuel to make up for oil's decline. We want to know how likely Hirsch's best case adaptation scenario is given the most likely constraints operating that are non-geopolitical (I know, I know: hoarding will occur, as will resource wars, but those are really hard to model well so ours will be a best-case scenario as well):

Which would be comprised of the following:

(See Peaking Of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management for details on why Hirsch selected those adaptation strategies.)

Early in the research we discovered this paper:

Coal liquefaction policy in China: Explaining the policy reversal since 2006

and it turns out that water constraints are largely the culprit for their change of course (with water contamination coming in close behind).

The coal–water mismatch has important implications for coal liquefaction since it is considered as being highly water intensive (Mielke et al., 2010). According to industrial data disclosed, each ton of synthetic oil output needs 8–9 t of freshwater in DCL and 12–14 t in ICL (Zhang et al., 2009). The water demand for a coal liquefaction plant with five-million-ton annual fuel capacity would range from 40 to 90 million tons. This would inevitably exacerbate the problems of water availability and quality in China’s coal-rich but water-stressed regions such as Shanxi (see Table 3). In addition to tightening its CTL policies, in fact Beijing has announced its strict regulation on any project with high water consumption and being constructed in water-stressed areas and is drafting water consumption quotas for certain water-intensive industries or sectors (Zhang, 2011).

DCL and ICL explained:

Converting coal to liquid (CTL) fuels, a chemical process, has been attractive to many countries with scarce local supplies of oil yet abundant coal. CTL, along with an arsenal of other technical and policy options such as energy efficiency, offers the prospect of greater energy security through decreased reliance on imported fuels. Technologically, there are two main routes for CTL produc- tion: direct coal liquefaction (DCL) and the Fischer–Tropsch (F–T) processes, also called indirect coal liquefaction (ICL). In DCL the coal is directly contacted with a catalyst with added hydrogen at elevated temperatures and pressures. By contrast, the ICL process consists to two major steps:
1) gasification to produce a synthesis gas and
2) conversion of the gas to a liquid by synthesis over a catalyst in a F–T process.

Therefore, the label ‘‘indirect’’ refers to the intermediate step of first making syngas. It is generally believed that DCL processes are more efficient—60% compared to 50–55%—but require higher quality coal and are more complicated (Williams and Larson, 2003; Liu, 2005).

Both processes were developed in pre-World War II Germany; both were used, but on fairly small scales, to meet Germany’s and Japan’s wartime needs for liquid fuel (Liu et al., 2010). Since the end of World War II, the only commercial experience in F–T coal liquefaction production has occurred in South Africa under government subsidy and in the face of severe apartheid-era restrictions on the country’s ability to import liquid fuels. Today, South Africa’s CTL industry continues—indeed, the South African firm Sasol is the world leader in deploying some of the technologies in CTL and a leader in many related processes such as gas to liquid (GTL) production (Couch, 2008). (Sasol uses ICL and thus is an expert in managing syngas operations—a skill useful in many aspects of the chemical industry.)

However, many other countries show active interest in coal liquefaction technology, including China, the USA, India, Japan, Australia, Botswana, Germany, Indonesia, Mongolia, and Philippines, particularly the first three key countries with large coal reserves but limited reserve of oil (Couch, 2008). Despite of dozens of coal liquefaction plants worldwide that are under consideration, by the end of 2010 there were only several that are under operation in South Africa and China, while three are under development in the United States and one in Mongolia (NETL, 2011).

Our suspicion is that water constraints (both in quantity and the populace not accepting contaminated water, at least in developed regions) are going to play a large role in almost every region we will examine. Our other early hypothesis is that credit-constraints will slow deployment of CTL, as well (see the Global Oil Risks paper for our thinking behind that).

There is almost an Omerta that exists regarding oil reserves and production. Robert Hirsch's own experience with the concept of Peak Oil is a good example of this. He didn't come across the concept until quite late -- 2004, I believe -- which is surprising given his experience and expertise. When he did begin to try to discuss it with others, he was continually ignored or dismissed. Needless to say, one can ignore reality only for so long, and only at one's own peril.

The timeline is missing for a very good reason, it is unknown. It is impossible to say exactly when a trigger event may happen or what that trigger event may be. Will oil prices get so high that they cause a collapse of the economy, similar but even more dramatic than the collapse in 2008? Will that tip the dominoes to falling? Is there a black swan in the near future?

These things are simply unknown. But that should come as no great surprise, the future has always been unknown. But there are some things we do know. We know that overshoot, in any species, has always led to collapse. As far as humans go, it happened to the Mayans and the Easter Islanders and several other cultures that found themselves in deep overshoot. There is no reason to believe it will be different this time.

We just don't know when.

Ron P.

I'm puzzled by your second reply. It appears to me you are implicitly asserting Humanity does not consider or care what the consequences of its behavior are. This is a significant statement given the tools at Humanity's disposal and the size of its population. Seven billion unbalanced people don't have a positive future, any way you look at it.

Yes, the main argument against a dieoff of many billions in the coming century boils down to "it's too terrible to think about". And indeed, in aggregate it'll be the nastiest event and biggest loss of human life for all time. The number of humans who will not get a chance to live - their lives made impossible due to decisions we fail to make now - will dwarf that number... but those folks at least won't suffer.

Certainly, the whole "dieoff" connection as the inevitable downside curve of dirt-cheap energy, industrialized ag, cheap shipping, peak roads, and the green revolution is something that makes the "peak resources" concept hard to get across, because the clear implications are horrific.

Still, when it is discussed, the burden of proof must logically fall on those who imagine an 8-10 billion population to exist without the stuff that sustains it today. Water, fuel, fertilizer, sanitation, complex extractive economies, roads, etc.

Perhaps as a practical matter in some contexts, "peak resources" needs to be discussed with a gentlemen's agreement not to mention "peak people", just as those who use quantum mechanics are discouraged from speculating on what it may imply about reality. I think Galileo operated under some such arrangement with the church.... it was alright to solve problems by positing that things acted as if the earth were the center of the universe, just not to state it as a conclusion.

Maybe "dieoff" is too stark a word and we need a good euphemism.

But that's the reality. The timing is uncertain but bounded. A plane runs out of fuel, it doesn't maintain altitude. Every species in overshoot has always crashed when the surplus food ran out. Humans are exceptional in some ways, but we aren't magical beings.

Why is it important to discuss it at all? I'd say because all horrible future scenarios are not equivalent. "dieoffs" aren't fungible, yet they are treated that way when we discuss the concept at all. A future where 6.1 billion starve is not equivalent to one where 5.9 billion people starve; looks like a rounding error, but it's 200 million deaths by starvation. Likewise, a planet with surviving fisheries and non-radioactive farmland is preferable to one without them, even if only 100 million humans survive. Nihilism/neglect now is an indulgence those future folks will have to pay a terrible, lingering price for.

That jetliner that ran out of fuel might be able to land anywhere in a 100-mile radius. Some spots would be less of a bummer than others. But the plane will wind up on the ground somewhere in that radius inside the hour. Recognizing that is a first step to having survivors.

There's a probabilistic range of outcomes still, and the degree of suffering, privation, destruction, etc are dice yet to be thrown, and utterly path-dependent on what happens before then. Seems to me that this should be our society's overriding focus. But our well-evolved mental stress-prevention heuristics cause us to not think about it, or to create alternative narratives, just as we deal with the knowledge of our personal deaths.

When we are able to look at this, really look at it and plan though it hurts to do so, we will be sneaking up on deserving the "homo sapiens" moniker.

I think the confusion about "peak oil" is primarily the same thing: misunderstanding which serves an evolved cognitive purpose. It may not matter what we call it...

cheers

This is probably been pointed out before but the likely outcome in the real world would be significantly WORSE than what the scenarios imply because World3:

has no war, no labor strikes, no corruption, no drug addiction, no crime, no terrorism. Its simulated population does its best to solve perceived problems, undistracted by struggles over political power or ethnic intolerance or by corruption.

Given humanity's history, I think that societal upheavals will cause the down-slope to be quite rapid.

Sure.

Except for Africa, humans have already chosen to reduce their fertility below replacement level - that's a really fundamental difference.

Garyp, great post. I agree with everything you say except... well I will get that later. But I also am more pessimistic. And so is Joseph Tainter. Sorry, I can't seem to find the video where he stated such but he said exactly that.

I must confess I was a doomer long before I ever heard of peak oil. I have followed the population explosion and the rape of the earth for almost 50 years now. I always knew that overshoot would eventually bring on collapse and die-off, I just had no idea when. Now I have at least a vague idea, give or take a few years. ;-)

Now to where I disagree with you. You seem to blame someone for our predicament. Please correct me if I am wrong but that is the impression I get. I however, don't blame anyone. It is just the nature of the animal, the human animal. It is in our nature to look out for number one. And that holds true whether we are on the bottom of the heap or on the very top. It is just our nature. And if you, or I, were the ones on top, I doubt seriously that we would behave any differently.

- As for pointing to our mental failures with scorn or dismay, we might as well profess disappointment with the mechanics of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. In other words, the degree of disillusionment we feel in response to any particular human behavior is the precise measure of our ignorance of its evolutionary and genetic origins.
- Reg Morrison, The Spirit in the Gene

Ron P.

Having been there a few years ago and done a bit of consulting work in the oil industry, I would agree that the UK government is not prepared for peak oil, and is actually in a state of denial about it.

For the UK, peak oil is a reality, not a theory. UK North Sea oil production peaked a decade ago and is now in a state of steep and irreversible decline. This was highly predictable if you have all the geological and production data, which the UK government does, so it should have come as no surprise to them.

I guess they just don't want to talk about it. A more rational approach would have been to plan for constrained oil supplies and start rebuilding the rather extensive but archaic British train system with the latest, state of the art technology; converting the double decker buses to electricity, promoting bicycles and walking, and doing innumerable other things. It's a cozy little country with a lot of people so all of these things are highly practical.

I don't see any sign of this happening, so it appears they are taking the ostrich approach: Stick your head in the sand and hope the threat goes away. (Ostriches don't actually do that kind of thing but it's a useful metaphor for governments).

Canada has large amounts of natural gas for heating purposes. The fact that production is declining just means that exports to the US will be reduced - assuming that the large reserves of shale gas in NE BC aren't developed faster than conventional production declines.

Building standard could be improved, but are better than the US and most of Europe. Most Canadians have access to public transit, although the quality of service could be better. Mayor Ford is Toronto's problem, at least until the next election. And who said Canada has to have zero carbon emissions by 2050? Certainly not the Canadian government.

The bottom line is that Canada has vast energy resources of all types. Ontario may have a problem due to its low energy resources in comparison to its rather large population, but most of the rest of the country is underpopulated and well endowed with energy resources.

Having been in the region, I would agree that agricultural production in India is not particularly dependent on oil.

The real victims of peak oil will be American farmers. The American farm industry is hugely dependent on fossil fuels - they never would get the crop yields they do without energy-intensive chemical fertilizers and fuel guzzling machinery.

India will probably not be hurt as badly, first because they do not use as much fertilizer and machinery, and second because in subsistence agriculture there are huge opportunities for rationalizing the farming sector and improving the productivity of farms. Most of the farmers will become factory and office workers, with a large increase in their productivity. With improved technology, the remaining farmers will have no problem maintaining and increasing farm production - even in the absence of increase in energy use.

Of course, this rationalization will devastate the US factory and white collar workforce because they will have to compete with former farm peasants willing to work for much less money, but I guess that's life.

I guess I'm mainly thinking of inputs associated with the Green Revolution (eg inorganic fertilizers and pesticides) and the energy needed to pump irrigation water from deep aquifers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India

We may fare better because we waste so much right now and we eat so much higher on the food chain.

An appropriate survival algorithm might be amount of chernozem soil per capita multiplied by amount of sunshine and (appropriate) rain per year. I would say that India is problematic in two out of the three variables.

"Humans - certain numbers of them, a sub-group of them - have done so"

they have?
deliberate self-regulation of population to manage its impact on the eco? who has done this?
if we could do this collectively then humans could take a much stronger hold of their fate. witch is really what all this knowledge and information seeking is all about. to take our fate out of the hands of chance(god) and into our own.

We need only stop using coal for electricity and start using it for CTL instead. Wind power could be used to create electricity, hydrogen and process heat for coal replacement and liquefaction.

I've often thought of that analogy too.

Whether or not you are "running out of life" depends on the environment you find yourself in during the Post-Peak (age ~ 30).

An individual in a functional, growing society might have it easy.

An individual in a dysfunctional, collapsing society might not have it so easy. He may in fact find he is "running out of life" quite quickly.

(ie. it all depends assumptions that rest on what you might refuse to imagine)

Each of us will see our productivity peak during our lifetimes. That productivity peak often occurs in our 20s and 30s and then we live for decades after that.

Well, harumph! Ye whippersnapper!

Actually I remember when I was in my 20s working as a carpenter on one particular job doing trim work. There were a couple of old-timers (50s & 60s) working the same job. These guys would cruise through the day giving the appearance of effortlessness while I struggled with each step of the way. They had things thought out and they spent little wasted effort because they knew exactly what they were doing, ending up getting more done than I did with less effort.

Recently I did a remodeling job on my house. Hired a couple of youngsters to help and the tables were turned.

So there is a lot to be said for experience and know-how.

BTW excellent summary of PO.

Robert,

The latest research suggests that growing experience and wisdom generally more than balances out a decrease in thinking speed and memory ability.

We do get better as we get older.

aangel
Compliments on an insightful paper from first glance. (Mostly) clear graphs.
Your Fig. 4 is a very important message.

Please check your Figure 3. Several blocks come up blank for me.
e.g. left most blue (= OPEC?); blue between "other conventional" and "venezuelan"; blue between "arctic" and "biofuels"; and blue upper right.

In Fig. 6 when Indonesia falls into importing, recommend changing from green to bright red and relabeling that portion as "imports".

I don't see any discussion as to the width of bars in Fig. 3.
Any explanation?

I would bet everything I own that well over ninety percent of the citizenry of the US doesn't know what an integral is.Probalby half of the other ten percent might understand the concept well enough to get the point.

But only a small fraction of that five percent will be willing and able to think well enough for themselves to take the implications seriously.

Civilization 5 is great for that. Should be played by every political leader to get a feel for the larger picture.

http://www.civilization5.com

"how do you create a participatory spectacle out of a solution, instead of simply expounding on a problem?"

I think they had that figured out in the movie, "Logan's Run".

every resident must undergo the ritual of "Carrousel" [sic] at the age of 30, where they are vaporized but with the promise of being "Renewed".

Chrome - "We're running out of oil". And that's exactly my point. Broadcast that statement in Houston, the OIL CENTER OF THE WORLD, and at least 75% of the population would call you a fool or a liar. And easily proven: gasoline is alomost down to $3.05/gal at our cheapest stations and their are no lines. Obviously we're not running out of oil. In fact with gasoline prices falling we must be finding more than ever.

And don't try to qualify your statement now: this 7 you just showed you how wrong you are so there's no point in listenting to what you have to say...na na boo boo.

Just out of curiousity: have you ever argued with a p/o 7 yo? LOL.

S - Response from the majority of Americans: Obviously "BJ" (Belallada Jahibidad?) is just another Arab crook that has a whole warehouse full of cookies that he won't sell so he can keep charging those high prices. And then to make matters worse some Jew speculator bought truckloads of BJ's cookies and has them hidden in freighters circling off NYC waiting for cookie DT's to kick in so they can gouge those kids when they start begging for their cookie fix. Even the cookie delivery company is messin' with the kids: they have a pile of cookies hidden in a barn in Cushing, OK. But we don't really have to worry: we have a salt dome in S La. filled to the brime with cookies and as soon as the president gets serious about running for re-election he'll send us all we need.

Silly, eh? But how many of us have already heard such analogous "explanations".

Once oil prices increase enough, supply chains break

Short term measures would work to get through a transition: Water shipping can just reduce speed by 20%, and reduce fuel cost per mile by 50%. Diesel could go to $250, and we'd just see a reduction in speed. Trucks can do the same, though the effect isn't quite as large. Trucks can retrofit aerodynamic improvements quickly and easily (though some have already done it, and the effect isn't enormous).

Both rail and trucking combined consume about 10% of oil in the US - if oil prices rose, they'd just pay the going price. Personal transportation, which accounts for 50% of oil consumption in the US, which be the area that would see big reductions.

Yair...OFM,way back Perkins were playing with the concept for auxilliary drives such as A/C and charging...I'm looking for a link.

Cheers

Or Yergin hit Peak Optimism in 2005.

Jabberwock,

yea I think PO Theory is OK. IMHO it describes what people do here, which is theorize about when the epoch takes place. Model is a good word though because it's much less assailable than 'theory', from the outside. "Theory" implies some doubt as to whether or not PO is a reality. No-one credible doubts PO, not here or elsewhere. But the majority of people learning about PO are not yet credible themselves, so they look to credible sources. If they hear 'theory', they're more likely to be confused or unconvinced. PO Model on the other hand opens with the right assumption: not if it exists or not, but how it plays out based on data.

But I'm not advocating for a change in terms or how people talk here or elsewhere. I'm just sayin is all! Just trying to strengthen the language.

Baikalic

Yep, and some will never understand it properly - but we oughta try, even if it is only because of the inverse relationship between fertility and education.

What really gets my goat is the education of students in proper Science, but only in the interest of having them be more capable of arguing against its determinations. I've had arguments with young adults who have developed an encyclopedic knowledge of Scientific facts and errors, and can define the scientific method perfectly, but only to support absurd, ideological conclusions.

Of course modern Science is always ideological as well, although it pretends not to be - that's one of it's most effective characteristics but also maybe it's biggest failing. But it's conclusions are not absurd, at least in contrast to the alternatives. But it is too literal IMO. Modern science seems to have unlearned the lessons of the ancient science of mythology and superstition, which was much more handy in managing masses of skittish people when push came to shove. Secular culture applies reason and statistics where it needs to apply authority and absolutes.

In many states -- I can't say about Texas specifically -- the electric generators have to assume some of the risks for fuel price volatility. Over the last decade, NG prices have been both very high and very low, and the generators have to make guesses about the next 30 years.

I know Texas has some cases where the coal-fired plants are owned by the same firm that owns big Texas lignite mining operations. These were the ones making the biggest fuss about the EPA's new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, because the tougher SO2 rules meant they were going to have to switch from local high-sulfur lignite with low costs and very reliable delivery to low-sulfur Wyoming coal, with much more variable costs and sometimes erratic delivery. Anyway, their business model is strictly coal-fired electricity; they don't even consider NG.

That is a specious argument. Periods of turmoil have always existed throughout history. You are mixing politics and system dynamics.

What I am saying is that governments today have the ability to airlift thousands of troops within minutes to remote areas, monitor your activities through satellite, track every financial transaction on the planet etc. Did this kind of control exist 60 years ago ? The political climate has changed in the places you mentioned not to mention that there is increase in prosperity, which is why there is more peace. That doesn't mean state power has gone down. As far as Russia goes, Orlov himself has mentioned how local governments started acting independently once FSU broke up.

And how long do you think it will take China to go back to Mao days if unemployment goes to 30%.

"I don't see net per capita energy getting nearly as low as it was sixty years ago in those places."

Per capita energy use in the USSR and several satellites was quite high (just look on the oil gaz production curves on mazama science for instance).
It was also very wasteful, a guy that used to go in the USSR quite a lot was telling me that for instance, you could sometimes have shortages of matches, so that people would leave their gas stove running 24/7 in order not to use matches ...
Don't forget that stalinism/communism was also a "glorification" of industry and technology.
And if places like Cuba have less energy today, it is also because their energy needs were subsidized by the USSR, same for North Korea.
And by the way the main "weapon" used by Reagan to bring the USSR down, was to stop (more or less) some gas pipelines projects from Russia to Europe, as well as to push the Saudis to increase their oil production starting 85 86 (oil glut counter oil shock), in order to cut USSR foreign currencies revenus (and it worked, revenus cut 2/3).
These are perfectly well documented historical facts.
China is another matter.

"I foresee 80% of the institutions of higher learning in the U.S. closing by 2020."

I imagine we'll see more of this as colleges compete to survive: 5 colleges slashing tuition

Hey Nigwil,

Well done on putting in the hard yards (even if the black swan arrives, that can't be a bad thing).

Unfortunately I'm stuck; have been for quite a few years. Even though I'm married to a math-science teacher who gets compounding growth/finite resources are a fundamental issue, she refuses to accept any possible consequences. So all three kids get their braces (teeth) at $5k a pop, the 14yo gets his three week trip to Germany next year (another $5k), etc... That is, it's BAU for Mr & Mrs Average.

I guess my point is, when you're on your own there's nothing to be done (we don't have the land for a decent-sized vegie patch, for example) and - at least in Australia - bringing up Peak Oil or such around the barbeque is pretty well a no go zone. Can't imagine that changing unless another GFC occurs; even then I'm doubtful. Of course by then, it'll be too late anyway.

The only ray of hope I have for my long-term future (and for the wife and three kids) is that by the end of next year all our personal debt will be squared away. Surely TPTB in this country can't stuff things up that quickly...

Regards, Matt

Robert,

I expect a slow squeeze on western economies .... making life difficult in oil-importing countries. I believe we have entered the long recession....I do not expect a massive die-off of the population...It won’t be a picnic; .....I have always been an optimist…

Semantics aside, your general POV leads to the above conclusions. In our little world of folks who comment on this subject, we have the Cornucopian's, declinists, and doomsters. Your position appears to be in that middle group. The question is: how does one arrive at that conclusion? And, what are the consequences of an "expert" giving this prediction?

Also, the problem is far more complicated than just PO - it is a confluence of PO/GW, plus an array of other extractive shortages, degradation of the ecosphere, species extinction, etc. Obviously, humans are the single cause of this predicament and the only species on the planet that has the ability to reverse the damage.

Why would well meaning, knowledgeable people want to propagate a fairly optimistic message as underlies your post? It seems to me that there is the potential for a lot more pain than "going to be very rough on the back side of the curve". Not sure what "rough" means but it implies something manageable. I think what Aniya is suggesting is the idea that humanity could actually be facing some very serious consequences - including various types of collapse and perhaps significant die-off.

Aniya has previously argued that we need some respected entity to perform an in-depth, rigorous, scientific study of PO for the US government. Only the NAS seems positioned to do this - and yet, to date, they have only touched upon the subject. Most folks on this forum dismiss this suggestion with a variety of rationales - none of which make any sense to me.

I argue that we have still failed to sufficiently define the problem in a manner that can be explained to the general public along with trusted scientific credentials. I realize that "trust" and "government" are difficult words to use in the same sentence - so, whose fault is that?

Here is my suggestion: spokespeople in this field (like you, who I sincerely believe have the best of intentions) stop offering any specific predictions and, instead, demand that our government (here in the USA) focus our best scientific minds on the analysis of this problem - think the effort to develop the atomic bomb or fly to the moon.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your reply.

It might be easier to take some of the quotes from people you're talking about, and then we could talk specifics.

Meanwhile, since you didn't quote the people you're frustrated with, I'm responding to your point, as you state it.

1) I'm willing to accept your definition "We mean: run out: 1. To become used up; be exhausted: Our supplies finally ran out."

There is a difference between past tense and present tense. There's a difference between a process currently underway, and one which is finished.

A says: We are running out of oil.

Robert says: "We will never run out of oil."

A's question is this: Who is the "we"?

Same question holds for this: "peak oilers literally believe we won't have oil for much longer."

Is not ELM about "Who is the 'we'?"

2) I believe perhaps I did not communicate well WRT my point that you quote here: "Now, the "issue" I have with this is that...I kind of wonder what the utility is of saying this in the context of the sentence as a whole."

I was referring to your saying that there will be plenty of oil left in the ground when we're through - i.e., through extracting the oil we can actually get. (Yes?)

I was questioning the utility of that, in the context of the facts of oil depletion.

To say, there will be oil left.

But, we cannot extract it.

What is the utility of this point?

I asked if you are trying to say there will be a new extraction technology. I didn't see that you responded to this question.

In other words, are you trying to say that there will be a new extraction technology, so that the oil that is there and we now think we cannot get (when we're done) will then be available? And we will be able to get it?

Global Asthmatic Oil Syndrome (GAOS) --what we are starting to suffer from (gasping for gas)

Has a nice ring to it and gets the desperation part of the message across. Good one Bob.

The Misconception has allowed detractors to keep pretending that "PEAK OIL" is supposed to mean 'The Tank is Empty', which they can quickly refute, and say 'Look, No PEAK, there's still oil. I can still get gas. (So Stop Lying to us.)'

Thanks, Bob. This paragraphy really says it better than I did.

While we are having a semantic discussion, I have to say I see Aniya's point still. Her rhetoric did give me some additional insight.

I think the difference in point-of-view, to me, is that Bob & Robert are having an argument with Yergin, and Aniya is maybe more in the 'explaining to a 7 yr old' mode. I mean, the problem, as she says, really is that "we are running out of oil". Sure, when Yergin comes back and says "but we're pumping more each year!", you can still say, "that doesn't mean we're *not* running out". 'Running out of gas' in your car is a relative problem, it's not absolute either - if I'm driving on the interstate, running out of gas might mean I can't make it 100 miles to the next town (i.e. 5 gal left), but if I'm in town already, it could mean, "I probably can't make it another block to the next Texaco". You've also got to define 'we' here - the USA is certainly going to define running out differently from MENA, who are going to 'run out' at a different number of 'gallons in the tank' from a village of people in S.E. Asia who do subsistence farming on river water and are relatively near the source. So, I don't know, "running out" isn't a bad first-level explanation to Joe 6pk, he's not exactly going to have a copy of Yergin on his bedside table. I fully understand the argument has to proceed past that point with those of us who are somewhat aware of the more intricate details, but the first level problem is that we are 'running out' of ANE's, no? Perhaps the strict definition of 'peak' (vs. 'inadequate flow levels to support economic growth and debt/fiat currency') is more the semantic issue?

Steve

Hi Bob,

Thanks.

re: "The Misconception has allowed detractors to keep pretending that "PEAK OIL" is supposed to mean 'The Tank is Empty', which they can quickly refute, and say 'Look, No PEAK, there's still oil. I can still get gas. (So Stop Lying to us.)' "

1) The "tank" is not empty - yet.

2) The day there are shortfalls in a particular region, then "the tank"(s) will be empty. Those tanks, for those people. (Quote ELM, here.) Another version of this is: well, OK, there's oil/gasoline - and an unemployment rate of X. (Insert Hirsch quote). Lots to be had, if one can have it. But one cannot.

3) They will be surprised, perhaps? "Nobody warned us!"

I'm not trying to play with semantics.

I'm trying to say that "We're running out" is what's going on.

Hi Bob,

I hope you'll come back to read, as I've been thinking about this exchange and posted again, below.

It took me some time to be able to articulate (to myself) exactly what my "issues" were with the formulation of Robert's argument, and - more important - what the commonality is, and where we can go from here.

The issues are important enough to consider carefully, IMVHO.

That's why we're here - yes?

I don't really see a conflict between the ideas of ELM and Peak Demand.

Hi step.

Yes, I'm here (when I can be.)

This discussion is interesting. (I must say I wish I could garner some attention on my final points, however!)

Anyway, I'd like to respond to your comments. You actually are packing a lot in here, and I think we need to be careful.

1. When you say: "If you're still here that is, the above is basically correct."

It is correct in the sense of logic, which is the sense I intended to use.

I see it (not to repeat): PO is a "subset" of "depletion"/"running out" - so, it's not the case the two are equivalent. One "maps" completely to the other (as a "subset") - the other does not map completely back. We had depletion from day one, and "peak" or different versions of peak - with, well, "peak." Peak appears to be a one-time only "event" - (bumpy plauteau, whatever), given current set up - technology that you mention.

BTW: One of my sort-of nits with Robert - although I passed over it in interest of addressing what I see as the more important point, anyway - his sentence about "peak" - isn't really a definition. Not sure he intends it to be. But saying: peak means just as US peaked, so will world peak - doesn't explain peak. Anyway, let me still leave that.

Also, I could've sworn Robert said something about "straw man" in his first reply to jokuhl (always cool!) Bob. Anyway...

2. "Peak Oil" is a socio-economic concept."

IMVHO, it's more accurate to say: PO is *both* a geological concept and a socio-economic concept. Let me try to elaborate:

A. There would still be limits, even if the earth's crust was thin and the entire remaining inside (as you allude to with space-alien analogy) was filled with oil.

So, it's more helpful to start with the physical limits, and then we can turn to the thermodynamic limits, which is what the socio-economic limits are connected with - (are they not?)

B. re: step says: "as humans with finite economic and other resources"

Yes. Now, let's see: One of the most important of the finite resources is energy. This ties into the both the general limits: physical, and the limits of the laws of physics. Yes?

The limits themselves are what the issue is. Although, I will say: one can speculate on taking away one limit, for eg., we can speculate: OK, given infinite energy! - then what? Well then, again, there are limits:

1) to the other resources on our dear, little planet and also,

2) WRT the laws of physics. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

C. re: Step says: "while operating under a free market basis..."

Well, I question this. My question is: One - how free is the market?

Two - under a different "system" - let's take a total command economy. As long as the economy is industrial and based on oil - you'll still be constrained by the physical and thermodynamic constraints. I actually question whether there's that much difference between a command economy or a different kind of economy and the one you call a free market basis, as long as the idea is: more, more more.

Now, we can imagine - and, in fact, propose and try to work for - greatly limiting the extraction rate. So, I can imagine a concerted effort (that is de facto the same as a command economy, global) to limit extraction.

Of course, the more humans constrain extraction, the more is left. Maybe.

Wups. The "maybe" kind of bothers me, as I just thought of it.

In other words:...we then run into another issue which is: no matter how you slice it, the current extraction technology is part of a system: materials, people, machines (that eat oil and also use electricity-based inputs) - to keep the extraction technology functioning. So,in other words, and this didn't really hit me until just now: eeeek. We can imagine that a "forced limitation" can possibly have the same outcome as the continuation of BAU on the current trajectory, which I intellectually (not emotionally) see as a collapse trajectory.

Do you see what I mean? Minimum operating level - to keep the extraction system going. I suppose it depends on who the end-users are. (ASIDE: Let's assume we're trying to minimize human suffering, as another premise. Then, we need some levels to do whatever "renewable" switch *may* or *maynot* be possible - before I divert on that, let me just say - I've asked it hundreds of times: can we switch to an electricity-based, global industrial infrastructure; if so, how.)

3. Anyway, before my circuits blow up, let me try to tackle this:

step says: "Geology however does not put constraints on how crude oil may, from a scientific perspective, be obtained.
It is our socio-economic systems and current technological capabilities that put these constraints into place."

A. I question again, you're saying that geology does not put constraints. I believe it does.

B. re: Technology capabilities. Are these not also a function of scientific knowledge?

I believe so. The scientific understanding may force recognition of 1) A limitation, in theory, of particular technology extraction methods; so there's that limit.

2) And then, we get the unknown future - with scientific breakthroughs.

Terrific! But the potential of continued scientific advancement, which might alter the scientific assessment of technological capacity, itself is a process - an undertaking, as it were - that requires the continuation of a system: persons, with education, with funding/food, etc. and lots of spare time (to spar/converse with each other when not otherwise occupied) in order to propel forward the "advance" of science, which may or may not be on the horizon.

So, just to say:

step says: "But then again, it's never been about "running out"."

Yes, it has been. It's been about both: 1) what is there and 2) what we can get - and they are inter-related.