Did U watch "CRUDE" [Archive]

dazzler

26th May 2007, 10:36 PM

Hey

Did you watch the show "CRUDE" about oil industry and the environment on the ABC the other night.

For a long time my somewhat fuzzie brain thought that global warming was an issue but running out of oil was much much worse given that it would change the human world catestrophically.

Did I understand it correctly;

We have already used half our oil as of 2006?

If we use the rest of the oil then the amount of carbon in the air will be the same % in the atmosphere that turned the prehistoric seas acidic and basically devoid of most life and this is how the oil was created in the first place.?

If we have used up half the oil in 150 years, and the use is growing exponentially, then we may have as little as 100 years before it is all used up?

And if we use it up then the earth is stuffed cause we rely on it completely and the seas will be stuffed as well.?

Should I be looking for a better cult, religion, sect or life form to join:(

Sir Stinkalot

26th May 2007, 11:04 PM

We have already used half our oil as of 2006?

Something like that ..... problem could be now that the first half was easy to get to ..... the second half will not be as easy.

If we use the rest of the oil then the amount of carbon in the air will be the same % in the atmosphere that turned the prehistoric seas acidic and basically devoid of most life and this is how the oil was created in the first place.?

There will be additional carbon in the air from natural gas and other sources, so basically it doesn't have to be when the oil runs out.

There are alot of people who say that carbon emmisions are just the next Y2K ..... making people spend money to clean things up. Even if it is the next Y2K what harm is reducing emmissions going to do? it can only make things better.

Glenn_M

26th May 2007, 11:36 PM

Stinky is right- we already burned the easy half, next have way more expensive to produce.

I think your estimate of 100 years to burn the next half is a little optimistic. With 1billion in China and what 600million in India wanting to drive a car like we do I would think 20 odd years at current rate of consumption.

You may have missed the SBS series Future Focus which had a doco called Crude Impact which talked about the impact of peak oil. Very interesting and a little scary. Showed how everything is related to crude either in terms of chemical components, derivatives or energy and transport. Really interesting doco. I recorded it to watch again.

Also showed what we need to do about it to stop the potential catastrophic outcome.

However, being the pessimist I am I think as a society we are too stupid, ignorant, arrogant, greedy and self centred to give a rats ring about it - until its too late. And of course having a government with the balls to consider any policy initiative with a longer term view than the next election is but a pipe dream.

Ah well, back to building the bunker with my treadle powered tools!

Cheers all,

lockwood116

27th May 2007, 03:54 PM

I also watched "Crude" and it answered alot of questions I had about global warming. Another one is Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth"
I walked from the cinema dumfounded. What hope have we got with the way the world is going. Don't call me a negative person but a realist.

Zed

27th May 2007, 04:24 PM

prob a good thing if we exterminate ourselves... however i dont think that will happen, a diff. mode of life for all, sure. but not the end of civilization...

what we need to do is get off the planet and colonise diff planets... theres a whole galaxy out there... surely realistic space travel is not just SCI-FI.... ???

dazzler

27th May 2007, 06:04 PM

Does anyone want to hear about my crazy thoughts on what will happen or do I keep them to my self:D

AlexS

27th May 2007, 06:46 PM

Does anyone want to hear about my crazy thoughts on what will happen or do I keep them to my self:D

yes:D

Grunt

27th May 2007, 06:51 PM

Peak Oil is going to cause the end of the world as we know it. That is every thing about are current way of life is going to change.

We currently use about 85 million barrels of oil per day. Every year from now on we will be able to extract less and less. If we have a depletion rate of 5% per year, in 9 short years we will be extracting only 42.5 million barrels a day. 5% is not hard to imagine considering that the North Sea peaked in 2000 and has been depleting at 15% per annum.

Oil is going to get hideously expensive.

There are no alternatives to oil.

Our food supply is completely and utterly dependant on fossil fuels. We use petrochemicals to fertilise, to make insecticides, to sow, to spray, to harvest, to transport, to process, to transport, to package and to transport again. For every calorie of food we produce, we use 10 calories of energy.

When the price of oil becomes so expensive or unavailable our agriculture system will collapse.

Oil has enabled to worlds population to increase from around 1 and a half billion 100 years ago to nearly 7 billion. Have a look at these graph.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Paul%203.jpg

The estimated world oil production from 1900 to 2080 goes like this.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Paul%205.jpg

The worlds population is in overshoot. That is we have exceeded the natural carrying capacity of the earth because of the availability of oil. The population will be reduced to somewhere between .5 billion and 2 billion over the next 30-50 years. That will mean somewhere between 380,000 and 600,000 people will need to die every day to meet that rate of population reduction. 250,000 people died in the 2005 tsunami.

Have a look at this post at The Oil Drum (http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2516)
And this post on Peak Oil and why there will be a die-off (http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html).

Check out this primer on peak oil (http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php)

I've spent a great deal of time over the last 18 or so months looking at and preparing for peak oil. It is real.

dazzler

27th May 2007, 06:51 PM

Okay here goes, straight jacket and big men in white coats at the ready...:-

A superpower will pre-emptive strike against the world with a bacterial or viral weapon with vaccines only available for its population.

Wipe out most of the world - problem solved.

"Would you like to go calmly or kicking and screaming sir?"

"oooh, kicking and screaming pleeeease :) "

"Ahhhhhhhhhh"

Grunt

27th May 2007, 06:56 PM

Oh, and yes I did see Crude and it was very good.

For those who didn't see Crude and want to you can here. (http://abc.net.au/science/crude/)

Grunt

27th May 2007, 07:01 PM

A superpower will pre-emptive strike against the world with a bacterial or viral weapon with vaccines only available for its population.

Wipe out most of the world - problem solved.

Resource wars are a distinct possibility. No, actually they are a reality, were involved in one now.

javali

27th May 2007, 09:56 PM

I guess someone has to present a different view.

Doom prophecies have been with us for as long as we have written history, and probably even before that. Fortunately they never come true. The war of Gog and Magog has not happened, and computers all over the world did not stop working on the turn of the century.

Peak oil theory is possibly true, however it is very unlikely. It relys on too many assumptions that if any of them is wrong the whole theory collapses.

Disasters will happen. Economy will collapse. Wars will be fought. In retrospect we will be very wise and know why this will have happened. It is highly unlikely that today's fears will come true.

echnidna

27th May 2007, 09:57 PM

here we see the Pessemist and the Realist :)

Glenn_M

27th May 2007, 11:10 PM

The reliance on petrochemicals has two impacts:

1. The reliance of much of the world's economy and population on its supply in terms of energy and products.
2. The reliance of the world ecosystem on its supply in terms of annihilation through the effects of global warming.

Running out of oil would help every species on the planet except ours?

Peal Oil is about running out of a finite resource. The only thing to argue about is the timing. As population grows so does the appetite for oil. It will run out. The only question is when.

That relates to point 2. Will it run out before or after we have done irreversible (to our species) damage to our habitat?

Look at Grunts charts. Our population is in the middle of a hydrocarbon fuelled blip in the population history of the planet.

I have heard quoted that if everyone lived as we do, then we would need 4 earths to feed our resource needs. With Chinese and Indian populations going through economic expansion their resource requirements are exponentially growing. And who can begrudge them this. We have been more wasteful for longer.

I do not know what the future is - but it must be very different from our present lives. I might be bad, I hope its not for my kids sake.

Peace

javali

28th May 2007, 12:07 AM

here we see the Pessemist and the Realist :)

The question is who is what...

Peal Oil is about running out of a finite resource. The only thing to argue about is the timing. As population grows so does the appetite for oil. It will run out. The only question is when.

The question is not even when we will run out of oil. The question is what will happen when we do. My view is that as oil prices go up more people would switch to other energy sources. As more people switch to other energy sources their price will come down (economy of scale), and suddenly we will find out that we are using more nuclear, wind, solar or NZ sheep butane than oil.
Honduras mahogany was the main timber in the furniture industry some 150 years ago. Did we stop building furniture after deplating most of the sources of honduras mahogany?
Nuclear energy reserves are enough to sustain the current world consumption for 5000 years. The amount of solar energy that hits the earth on a single day is more than 10 times the world annual energy consumption. If we tame only 1% of the solar energy that hits the earth we can increase our energy consumption by a factor of 60, and still rely on renewable energy. There is no energy shortage in sight.

That relates to point 2. Will it run out before or after we have done irreversible (to our species) damage to our habitat?

We have already done that.

Look at Grunts charts. Our population is in the middle of a hydrocarbon fuelled blip in the population history of the planet.

I looked at the chart. Everything after 2007 is an assumption. How do we know we are at the peak? Maybe the peak will come in 20 years, or 50? Maybe by then we will be able to commercially use wave, solar or wind energy?

I do not know what the future is - but it must be very different from our present lives. I might be bad, I hope its not for my kids sake.

Very true, regardless of oil production.

Grunt

28th May 2007, 03:19 AM

The question is not even when we will run out of oil. The question is what will happen when we do. My view is that as oil prices go up more people would switch to other energy sources. As more people switch to other energy sources their price will come down (economy of scale), and suddenly we will find out that we are using more nuclear, wind, solar or NZ sheep butane than oil.

None of these can hope to replace anything but a fraction of our oil use in a time frame that will make a difference. All of them are 'Oil Derivatives'. That is you need to use oil to mine crap to make them, transport crap or use petrochemicals to feed them. As the price of oil goes up, so will the price of these.

Oil is a liquid. It's kind of handy for transporting. We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now. Even if we could our electrical grid can barely cope with current demand let alone the several orders of magnitude increase in capacity we would need to run our transport system.

Nuclear energy reserves are enough to sustain the current world consumption for 5000 years.

Just crap.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch/2005/images/0703.h3.gif

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/petch/2005/images/0703.h4.gif

Uranium needs to be mined, processed and transported. That ain't happening without oil. Also, I'm not too keen on nuclear powered cars on the road.

If we tame only 1% of the solar energy that hits the earth we can increase our energy consumption by a factor of 60, and still rely on renewable energy. There is no energy shortage in sight.

Currently, about 1% of the worlds generated energy comes from solar power. To make solar panels requires a great deal of energy to mine the raw materials, ship, manufacture and maintain photo voltaic arrays. Solar powered cars aren't very practical either. There is no way that we could build sufficient numbers of solar panels and the required batteries to replace 50% of our oil needs in 9 years.

How do we know we are at the peak? Maybe the peak will come in 20 years, or 50? Maybe by then we will be able to commercially use wave, solar or wind energy?

Without hindsight we won't truly know we have reached peak. However, the evidence is mounting. Many countries have already reached peak. America, Norway, Venezuela, UK, Indonesia, Iran, Australia etc.

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

We need oil to produce it. In the US oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's. 40 years later in 1971, the US reached peak production. It has been declining ever since. The world oil discoveries peaked in 1965. 40 years later, it appears we have reached peak.

MrFixIt

28th May 2007, 05:22 AM

Hi

I doubt that things are as bad as that portrayed by the media and doomsayers.

However I do agree that the worlds population is NOT doing things right. Many of what is done is backwards.

For example we are churning out MORE CO2, while at the same time copping down millions of trees the very thing that helps scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere.

So when are we going to get the less knowledgeable people annihilating the trees to understand the global waming problem? How are THEY going to exist if they can't sell the timber etc.

What happens when the oil runs out? We go back to the way things were before we had oil, INVENTING ways to do things WITHOUT oil.

Nuclear fusion is the way to go as it can be self sustaining and far less nasty than nuclear FISSION.

From here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

It takes considerable energy to force nuclei to fuse, even those of the lightest element, hydrogen. But the fusion of lighter nuclei, creating a heavier nucleus and a free neutron, will generally release more energy than it took to force them together — an exothermic process that can produce self-sustaining reactions.

With nuclear fusion reaction we would NEVER run out of energy, in fact the eventual producers would be forever making more than we could use. How are they going to sell it? Where are they going to earn their money to pay wages etc. They could sell it so cheap (eventually).

There are too many flow on effects if the "powers that be" were to introduce nuclear fusion now. The oil industry would crash leaving industrial turmoil in its wake.

So, too much of the global warming scenario is politically based and politically BIASED.

It is not excessively expensive to solar power your own home, though it is still for the more affluent. It is not yet within the realms of everybody's income but given a few more years even THAT will become a VERY viable option.

The human race will continue to survive. The conveniences we have may diminish or even dissipate entirely, BUT we will ALL adjust.

What if oil was not available as of tomorrow? Yes, it would be drastic adjustment.

There could be a resurgence in growing our own fuel oils - plant based and renewable.

Jobs would change, we would have a new need for other types of transportation, bicycles, horses etc. We would to some extent revert to the old ways which is not such a bad thing. There would be less obesity :U

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

Because an INCREASE in production reduces the price of oil!

We need oil to produce it.

Why? they didn't have oil when they first discovered it? I don't deny though that it would not be quite so easy as it was in the early days of oil discovery.

In the US oil discoveries peaked in the 1930's. 40 years later in 1971, the US reached peak production. It has been declining ever since. The world oil discoveries peaked in 1965. 40 years later, it appears we have reached peak.

How do we REALLY know this. As the oil market is so politically based and biased WORLDWIDE who can we believe?

We'd better start saving all those wood scraps and start building that steam engine :2tsup:

We WILL survive. At least until 2012 when the Mayan calandar runs out and who knows what will happen. It is supposed to be the end of the world as we currently know it. Either world war(s) or cataclysmic natural disasters are predicted by some.

A couple of references for those that may be curious...

http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html

http://www.greatdreams.com/2012.htm

http://survive2012.com/why_2012_maya.php

http://www.greatdreams.com/end-world.htm

I have NOT read these so I do not advocate or dismiss these,I only put them here (plucked from Google) for your interest (amusement?)

Australia is one of the safest places to be as it is on it's own "plate". We may be surrounded by fault lines but all in all Australia will be THE place to be :2tsup:

Oh well enough of this morbid talk, I'm a survivor so those of you that survive with me will have to start writing letters again to keep up the forum :U :U

dazzler

28th May 2007, 10:41 AM

Always keep a paper clip in your mouth:wink: ,

But from what this program was saying, if we use up the oil that we know we have that the CO2 levels will rise beyond what existed at the time that the oil was laid down originally and that it was laid down because the seas become toxic due to huge algal blooming and effectively a dead zone beneath the surface which stops all the dead animals/plants from decaying and instead it beomes a sludge on the ocean floor.

They seemed to use simple maths. The atmosphere is this much cubic kilometres in size and CO2 is currently Y%. Add in this much CO2 and the % becomes X% and its all over.

And seeing as humans are too stupid to look to the future we will go on until were smacked in the face and then all hell will break loose. :(

Gotta go or Ill be missed. :p

javali

28th May 2007, 12:39 PM

We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now.

Assumption!

Just crap.

Uranium needs to be mined, processed and transported. That ain't happening without oil. Also, I'm not too keen on nuclear powered cars on the road.

Assumption!
The diagrams are true assuming we take the IPCC estimate of remaining nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates are more than a hundred times higher.
Oh, and while I am not keen on nuclear power at all, there is no need for nuclear powered cars.

Without hindsight we won't truly know we have reached peak. However, the evidence is mounting. Many countries have already reached peak. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]America, Norway, Venezuela, UK, Indonesia, Iran, Australia etc.

Saudi Arabia, the largest producer of oil (about 10%), produced 8% less oil in 2006 than it did in 2005. This in it self is not proof of them having reached peak but you've got to ask yourself why with oil prices so high, why wouldn't they increase rather than decrease production.

Assumption!
OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices.
Hindsight is a powerful tool. In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?

You see, the main problem with 'peak oil doom theories' is that peak oil production is an effect. Not a cause. Peak oil production will occur exactly at the time that demand will diminish. That's basic economy. US oil production peaked not because it could not produce more oil. It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.

Doom theories are always based on a very strong FUD factor. The fear of not having enough fuel to take the children to school, combined with the uncertainty as to the amount of energy reserves we have and the doubts about alternative energy sources is an excellent basis for a doom theory. Doom theories are also based on the assumption that things will be radically different in the future. This is where they break. God does not rain great hailstones fire and brimstone, computers do not stop working just because the date changes, and pigs do not fly. Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy. There is no reason to lose sleep over any of these.

silentC

28th May 2007, 01:00 PM

computers do not stop working just because the date changes
Umm, well in some cases they did, but it wasn't so much the computers stopping, but the software written for them that was the problem. And because we spent wads of cash on making sure that all software was 2000 compliant, we didn't have many problems. So that was a case of people realising there was an impending problem and doing something about it before it was too late. Yes a lot of it was overkill, but it was better to fix each and every double digit year variable than analyse each and every one for it's potential impact. 'twas a good time to be a programmer because Y2K took a lot of resources away from the mainstream and made the rest of us more desirable.

So you are faced with a decision, you can wave it aside as just another doom prophesy and assume that things will just keep going as they always have done, because based on our (paultry) couple of thousand years of recorded history they always have, or you can accept the possibility that just maybe this is a problem that we need to do something about because hindsight will be too late.

I always think it's pointless to look for analogies (like Y2K) because they are independent and unrelated events and have no meaning when talking about climate change or oil.

zenwood

28th May 2007, 02:29 PM

Javali's point is excellent: future forecasts are based on current trends and assuming that these will remain valid. However we're coming up with massive upheavals, that change the conditions, and these are not accounted for in static models.

I am encouraged by the fact that people have been forecasting doomesday scenarios throughout history, and many of them have not come to pass. Such as the imminent return of Christ, Gog and Magog, the coming ice age of the 1970s, and indeed Y2K.

On the other hand, massive change is what human beings do very very well. We have adapted ourselves in the last 10,000 years or so to most conditions on the planet.

I wonder what will be the interaction between the exhaustion of the world's oil and the exponential rise of computation, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and robotics (see e.g. Kurzweil (http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0670033847)). In a couple of century's time, we may be able to avoid international air travel by downloading ourselves into a network, passing the data across the ocean, and re-instantiating ourselves at the remote location. That's assuming a remote location is required. The teletransportation may not even be needed if virtual presence is of sufficiently high fidelity. The pertinent equivalent of a current human life might be executable on only a few joules of energy. Current biology is quite inefficient, having to lug around a lot of supporting structure (skeleton, digestive system, muscular system, etc), to get the brain to various locations.

Maybe the doom-sayers are right: humanity is destined for extinction, the cockroaches will inherit the earth, and the planet will breathe a slight sigh and move on: other species expanding and adapting into their evolutionary futures. There's a certain poetry in the human race evolving from its simian roots and in only a few million years consuming itself in a blaze of fiery intelligence, perhaps the only such intelligence the universe will ever know.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." -- Niels Bohr

silentC

28th May 2007, 02:40 PM

I am encouraged by the fact that people have been forecasting doomesday scenarios throughout history
Yes but don't forget that we know a lot more about the world than was known then.

People keep bringing up Y2K and the apparent anti-climax as a reason for assuming everything will be OK. I don't understand that way of thinking. It's like having your alarm clock go off on time despite a power failure overnight and assuming therefore that the weather forecast for rain will be proven wrong. Other past 'doomsday' prophecies have just as little to do with it. Just because one group of scientists, philosophers or religious nutters were wrong, doesn't mean they all will be.

The Y2K analogy is a furphy. If no action had been taken, there would have been havoc. I can speak with authority about that, at least for the organisation I was working for at the time. It was never going to be a world 'doom' event though. It doesn't even rate next to the problems projected by the peak oil and global warming theories (let's not forget that's what they are, theories. Nobody knows what is going to happen).

javali

28th May 2007, 02:47 PM

So that was a case of people realising there was an impending problem and doing something about it before it was too late.

Sure that was the case, but there was also another side. There were the doom prophesies along the lines of "there is no way that all software will be fixed on time, financial markets will collapse, buy gold and stay in your shelters." People did just that. Gold price jumped just before the end of 1999.
http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au1999.gif

So you are faced with a decision, you can wave it aside as just another doom prophesy and assume that things will just keep going as they always have done, because based on our (paultry) couple of thousand years of recorded history they always have, or you can accept the possibility that just maybe this is a problem that we need to do something about because hindsight will be too late.

Deplating oil resources is not a doom prophesy. It is an issue that has to be and is being addressed. Research is being carried on alternative energy sources. Plants are being built and at some oil price they will become a commercially viable option.

"The population will be reduced to somewhere between .5 billion and 2 billion over the next 30-50 years" is a doom prophesy. We are not in that stage yet. There is no need to "build sufficient numbers of solar panels and the required batteries to replace 50% of our oil needs in 9 years". There is no need to build personal stashes of petrol, food and water and to arm yourself to the teeth in preparation for a Mad Max society. If we do not address the problem of deplating oil reserves we will have to deal with a Mad Max society. It is not a real option yet. no need to lose sleep over it.

silentC

28th May 2007, 02:56 PM

There were the doom prophesies along the lines of "there is no way that all software will be fixed on time, financial markets will collapse, buy gold and stay in your shelters."
But there were just as many people saying that it would all be OK and not to worry about it. It was sensible to be cautious. You don't just sit back and see what happens. It's all part of risk mitigation. People whose job it is to analyse risk must look at the worst case scenario. If it turns out better, well and good but at least you were prepared.

Balance is required, but throwing up arguments that the ice age never came or Y2K was a non-event don't contribute much because they are not logically related scenarios.

I think there are enough knowledgeable people ringing alarm bells to make it something that needs to be looked at urgently. If spouting doom prophecies gets people to sit up and take notice (like Y2K) then perhaps it's not a bad tactic. Maybe we need them to distract people from their daily pursuit of hapiness in the form of bigger TVs.

Grunt

28th May 2007, 05:10 PM

OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices. Explain why we went for nearly two decades at between $10 and $20 a barrel till 2000. Surely, it would have made sense to restrict supply at that price rather than at near $70 a barrel.

Originally Posted by Grunt http://mt0.woodworkforums.com/images/button2/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?p=518062#post518062)
We would need to replace half of our car and truck fleet with electric vehicles within 9 years assuming peak is about now.
Assumption!

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a depletion rate of 5%. This is a reasonable estimate based on historical depletion rates. See graph below.

In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?The drop in production was completely due to a drop in demand. The oil shock of 1979 was caused by political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia. There was a short period where we actually tried to conserve oil.

How do we REALLY know this. As the oil market is so politically based and biased WORLDWIDE who can we believe?Absolutely. There is no reason for a country or an oil to lie about production. A company that understates there production would have an adverse effect on their share price. Not something directors of companies like. Oil is a finite resource. It is not a question of whether we we will reach peak oil but when.

There is real reason for countries to lie about there reserves though. OPEC brought in a rule that said OPEC members were not allowed to produce more than a set percentage of their total oil reserves. Miraculously, over the next 18 months every OPEC member's stated reserves increased by somewhere between 50% and 200%

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Hubbert_world_2004.png

It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.At $70 a barrel, you would think that it would become economic to start producing at least a bit more. The US has been in steady decline since 1971.
Peak Oil is about the end of cheap oil not the end of oil.

Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy.The price of oil has nearly quadrupled over the last 5 years. When will these become viable?

What happens when the oil runs out? We go back to the way things were before we had oil, INVENTING ways to do things WITHOUT oil.

Nuclear fusion is the way to go as it can be self sustaining and far less nasty than nuclear FISSION.

Fission is still a pipe dream. At best it is still decades away from commercial reality.

Why? they didn't have oil when they first discovered it? I don't deny though that it would not be quite so easy as it was in the early days of oil discovery.Oil is part of everything we do. We will have to change everything in our lives in a relatively short space of time. We haven't started yet.

Gingermick

28th May 2007, 05:18 PM

Nuclear fusion is the way to go

All we need to do is master cold fusion. And given that the laws of thermodynamics wont let us, we'll just have to elect a goverment that will change those laws.:D

However, I did see a telly program on a experimental fusion reactor in ths US. they succeeded in producing a fusion reaction, for a nano second or something, and harnessed a number (greater than 1) of Tera-watts. More power than the world was currently using at that time.

Grunt

28th May 2007, 05:54 PM

However, I did see a telly program on a experimental fusion reactor in ths US. they succeeded in producing a fusion reaction, for a nano second or something, and harnessed a number (greater than 1) of Tera-watts. More power than the world was currently using at that time.

If that was Catalyst late last year, they used put more energy into the reactor then they got out. The next step was to build a bigger reactor for around US$6 billion. They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.

echnidna

28th May 2007, 06:07 PM

All that reactors can really power is an electricity grid, and there are various ways of making electricity without oil.

What is needed is vehicle fuel.

Gingermick

28th May 2007, 06:25 PM

I They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.

They are, however technological advance is also exponential.

Andy Mac

30th May 2007, 01:23 AM

It was a good show, and I especially liked that young (greenie) woman's comments, that everything we touch has a drop of oil involved, whether in transport or manufacturing, or as a product/byproduct.
We are currently bound up with the supply of oil, and that supply will be hit by the double whammy of increased extraction costs and spirally demand. We need to reduce our dependence on oil.... that is a simple no-brainer.
I guess my thoughts are on how do we continue to produce or manufacture at the current rate, and then transport our needs. Domestic transport isn't really an issue I don't reckon: we'll get by on increasingly more efficient vehicles and public transport, with increasing use of electric vehicles; electricity will continue to be produced, if only by the vast reserves of coal. Long distance and heavy haulage is a different matter, where electric vehicles (apart from trains) aren't an option at present, so we may need to revisit the rail network. Air travel will suffer!
Agriculture, especially broad acre farming, will suffer greatly without diesel, and I can't imagine electric tractors in the near future! Add oil crop production onto increased demand for food cropping....:C
But what about the products manufactured from petrochemicals....rubber for the enormous number of tyres for instance? Go back to latex!? People have mentioned all sorts here...pesticides and fertilizers, plastics. Can the base chemicals needed for these be extracted from coal, a closely allied substance? I seem to remember reading that early plastics production was from coal? What about lubricants...seems we can't rely on whales as an alternative anymore. As an ex-mechanic, I can't imagine a world without oil and grease. What is synthetic motor oil made from...more oil I'd guess!?

Many challenges lie ahead, and it will involve changes in expectations, but I feel confident it won't be the end of the world!
BTW has anyone read Dougal Dixon's "After Man: a zoology of the future"?:p

Cheers,

SPIRIT

30th May 2007, 03:57 PM

If that was Catalyst late last year, they used put more energy into the reactor then they got out. The next step was to build a bigger reactor for around US$6 billion. They are still a long way off from actually producing usable energy.That reactor will self feed the power needed to run (so they say)the hard part is they don,t know how to stop the reaction:oo:

dazzler

30th May 2007, 09:22 PM

Assumption!

Assumption!
The diagrams are true assuming we take the IPCC estimate of remaining nuclear fuel. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates are more than a hundred times higher.
Oh, and while I am not keen on nuclear power at all, there is no need for nuclear powered cars.

Assumption!
OPEC production policy has always been limiting production to maintain high prices.
Hindsight is a powerful tool. In 1985 oil production has been 10% lower than the up to then peak production. Evidence was more than mounting then. Why will that not repeat?

You see, the main problem with 'peak oil doom theories' is that peak oil production is an effect. Not a cause. Peak oil production will occur exactly at the time that demand will diminish. That's basic economy. US oil production peaked not because it could not produce more oil. It peaked because it was cheaper to produce oil elsewhere. World peak production will be reached when it becomes cheaper to use other energy sources.

Doom theories are always based on a very strong FUD factor. The fear of not having enough fuel to take the children to school, combined with the uncertainty as to the amount of energy reserves we have and the doubts about alternative energy sources is an excellent basis for a doom theory. Doom theories are also based on the assumption that things will be radically different in the future. This is where they break. God does not rain great hailstones fire and brimstone, computers do not stop working just because the date changes, and pigs do not fly. Oil prices will not soar overnight, alternative energy will become available when it becomes commercially exploitable, peak oil production will be reached and oil will gradually be replaced as the major source of energy. There is no reason to lose sleep over any of these.

But,

Getting back to Crude, from what they were saying, and it was very matter of fact and stuck to simple formulas, we dont have much time at all.

Any ideas on rebutting what was said in Crude, in particular the carbon saturation stuff :?

Gingermick

30th May 2007, 10:09 PM

There is talk of global dimming, not as a result of dubbya, but the increase in pollutants in the air reflecting solar energy away.

dazzler

30th May 2007, 10:44 PM

Hot dark and smelly....sounds like a nite club :D

Grunt

30th May 2007, 11:11 PM

There is talk of global dimming, not as a result of dubbya, but the increase in pollutants in the air reflecting solar energy away.That's the answer, let's put more crap in the air. Pity we have to breathe. It would work though. Link New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn7346-clearing-smog-has-led-to-global-brightening.html)

Any ideas on rebutting what was said in Crude, in particular the carbon saturation stuff :?I think it's fairly simple. The earth sequestered lots of CO2 over the course of 100 or million years and we release it over the 150 years.

Agriculture, especially broad acre farming, will suffer greatly without diesel, and I can't imagine electric tractors in the near future! /QUOTE]

Modern agriculture is completely dependant on fossil fuels in every step. For every calorie of food we eat, it took 10 calories of energy to produce it. Diesel, fertilisers, pesticides, transport and production all use and require oil.

[quote]Add oil crop production onto increased demand for food cropping....:C[Look on the bright side, we'll grow fuel instead of food and mum will still be able to pick kids from school. It's a pity about those in the 3rd world as they'll starve but that's ok because funny looking.

Can the base chemicals needed for these be extracted from coal, a closely allied substance?

Yes there is Coal to Liquid technologies. However there is a few significant problems with this. Firstly is that coal is very dirty in regards to global warming. Processing releases the embedded CO2. Secondly, it takes more energy to process the coal to liquid than you get from the resulting liquid.

They are, however technological advance is also exponential.

The real problem is the time that we have available. Even if they got fusion right in the next few years, we'd need to build 1000s of reactors, a 3 fold increase the capacity of all electrical grids, replacing most of the internal combustion cars with electric ones. It would cost trillions and trillions dollars and take decades. We simply don't have the time.

outback

31st May 2007, 08:51 AM

Electricity and vehicle fuel will be easy. We do that now, almost economically.
The BIG one is the reliance on chemicals and other stuff. Not just agriculture, everything we use and touch seems to have some form of oil industry product in it, it gets scary when you really think about it.

SPIRIT

31st May 2007, 12:30 PM

everybody has a goal not always the same as ours there maybe people that everything is going to plan ,they do spend a lot of money ,time and energy looking out at space
some are at the stage where they think they can jump ship

l havent gotten my ticket yet

javali

31st May 2007, 03:16 PM

Explain why we went for nearly two decades at between $10 and $20 a barrel till 2000.

The beauty of having enough data is that you can prove anything with it. Now let us apply the same reasoning to other resources.
Copper: copper price has quadrupled itself in the past 5 years. Production in the US, Peru and Kazakhastan, three of the largest producers of copper (about 20% of the total production), has dropped in 2005. (I do not have more recent data.) Are we facing "Peak copper" crisis?
Zinc: zinc price has quadrupled in the past 5 years. Production in Peru (over 13% of the total world roduction in 2003) has dropped in 2004 and again in 2005. Are we facing "Peak Zinc"?
Was our world designed in such a way that all of the resources are deplated at exactly the same time?

Yes, I'm assuming that we have a depletion rate of 5%. This is a reasonable estimate based on historical depletion rates. See graph below.

Saw the graph below. The interesting thing is that the drop of 5% starts tomorrow. Why? Why not 20% or 2% or maybe production will increase?

Actually, if we base world forecasts on US past data, and assume the 40 years interval you mentioned, I noted that for the past 30 years US production has dropped by less that a half. I would have assumed that this would be the deplation rate you would use.

The drop in production was completely due to a drop in demand. The oil shock of 1979 was caused by political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia. There was a short period where we actually tried to conserve oil.

I would have assumed that political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia would affect current oil prices. Don't they?

As you know, oil price in 1979 has reached $100 in today's dollars. Oil price can still grow by 40% before reaching the circumstances that triggered our attempts to conserve oil. Why would it not work this time?

I do not suggest that we would have oil forever. Alternative energy sources should be developed and deployed, and the sooner the better. There is, however, no need for the panic. It is actually counterproductive. If we are in the after peak oil times, and tehre are no alternative sources at hand, and, as you claim, there is no time, than there is no need to develop alternative energy sources. Focus your efforts on survival in the post-judement-day world.

BTW, what's wrong with the explanation that currect resources (including oil) prices are high due to a combination of unexpected high demand and the weakness of the US dollar? The drop in the world's production and in Saudi Arabia's production is a simple fluctuation (similar to those in previous years - see your graph), and everything will be OK?

Dr. No

31st May 2007, 03:23 PM

Did you watch the show "CRUDE" about oil industry and the environment on the ABC the other night.

No.

SPIRIT

31st May 2007, 03:38 PM

Javali and grunt
yes we will have a oil crisis but it will not be the end of the world ,,,please come on now people went though the back death had a better out look
Things will change YES be ready for the change is the answer the change isn't going to come with big bang more like eat away at the sysem we live in
worse it gets more people will change ,gee some farmer still cut down all their trees ,more and more are planting them

l have my idea how best to get along in the new world much like Grunts
:2tsup:

silentC

31st May 2007, 03:48 PM

The problem is twofold. Firstly we have come to rely on oil so heavily that just about everything we do requires it. There are no real alternatives at present. Secondly, people don't truly believe it is ever going to come to an end (it will) and have largely forgotten how to get by without it. So if something does not come along to replace it, there will be a fairly dramatic change to life as we know it.

Personally, I'm OK with that. But I will miss electricity :(

Daddles

31st May 2007, 05:01 PM

But I will miss electricity :(

I won't because me computer won't work so I won't have to listen to you lot badgering on about the world oil crisis :D and by the time I've worn out me collection of pushbikes ... I'll have starved to death because we've lost the ability to produce enough food :wink: not that it'll take that long because some git of a government will unleash a nuclear holocaust (oh hang on, that was the sixties and seventies :doh:) but ...

No, not trivialising it. We're heading for shocking trouble and I'm hoping the human animal can manage yet another breathtaking survival trick :C

Richard

Grunt

31st May 2007, 11:02 PM

Are we facing "Peak copper" crisis?
Are we facing "Peak Zinc"?

Simply yes. The way we are consuming resources it's only a matter of time before supplies dwindle and demand exceeds supply. Peak Copper (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/7/104617/4294)
The worlds resources are finite. We use them like there is a limitless supply.
Copper is damned useful. While there are some alternatives like silver and aluminium but they are more expensive or less effective. In a short space of time we would reach peak with any alternative.

The worlds resources are NOT limited.

I noted that for the past 30 years US production has dropped by less that a half. I would have assumed that this would be the deplation rate you would use.

The production depletion in the US is about 2% per annum. Which over 35 years is gives you half the production rate. In addition, the US made significant oil discoveries in Alaska which reduced the depletion rates. Check out some of the other countries like Norway and the UK. Their depletion rates are approaching 10%.
5% is a reasonable assumption. Of course it could be less but equally it could be more.

I would have assumed that political events around Iran and Saudi Arabia would affect current oil prices. Don't they?

To a point but at that time Iran cut off oil exports entirely as part of the whole US embassy hostage crisis. Interestingly, that reduced the oil supply to the US by around 5%. It had devastating effect on economies around the would.

The drop in the world's production and in Saudi Arabia's production is a simple fluctuation (similar to those in previous years - see your graph), and everything will be OK?

The evidence for reaching Peak about now is very strong. It is not a case of IF it is a case of WHEN.

I do not suggest that we would have oil forever. Alternative energy sources should be developed and deployed, and the sooner the better. There is, however, no need for the panic. It is actually counterproductive. If we are in the after peak oil times, and tehre are no alternative sources at hand, and, as you claim, there is no time, than there is no need to develop alternative energy sources. Focus your efforts on survival in the post-judement-day world.

Peak Oil gets very little coverage. I don't see how it's counter productive to inform people that it the sheet will hit the fan and we're going to be in for some very tough times. Everyone should learn to grow some veggies and maybe get some chickens. It'll be good for the environment to boot.

dazzler

31st May 2007, 11:49 PM

No.

Probably a good thing:wink:

javali

1st June 2007, 12:00 AM

Simply yes. The way we are consuming resources it's only a matter of time before supplies dwindle and demand exceeds supply.

Isn't it strange that for some strange reason the supply of all major resources ends up exactly at the same time? Resources are limited. We agree on that. But why would all resources peak at the same time? Our use rate does not necessarily match the existing quantity of a resource, so I would have expected each resource to peak at its own time. Take the price graph of any resource you like, wipe the numbers, and noone could tell what resource it is. They are just the same. How did that happen? Peak oil/copper/whatever does not explain this. Awakening China markets explain increasing demand.

5% is a reasonable assumption. Of course it could be less but equally it could be more.

As reasonable as 5% increase.

The evidence for reaching Peak about now is very strong. It is not a case of IF it is a case of WHEN.

It is a major question of if. I do question it. I do not believe in it. The evidence I have seen of the presumed peak is also evidence for peak in any other resource, which simply does not make sense.

Peak Oil gets very little coverage. I don't see how it's counter productive to inform people that it the sheet will hit the fan and we're going to be in for some very tough times. Everyone should learn to grow some veggies and maybe get some chickens. It'll be good for the environment to boot.
The presumed peak is a worst case scenario that will happen unless we do something about it. If we do nothing for preventing this scenario than we will have 500,000 people dying every day for 30 years. That's what you said. As soon as we start treating this as certainty instead of a worst case possibility than nothing can be done to prevent it. Instead of working on prevension we will be erecting crap-shields to shield us from flying sheet, and peak-oil becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy. That's counter productive.

I have already lived three doom prophecies I am aware of, and probably hundreds I have not heard about. History is full of prophecies. Some are religion based, some are based on science. Some are vague others are detailed. Some are reasonable, others are just whacky. They all have one thing in common. They are all wrong. Strangely enough, most disasters and crises were not predicted by any of these prophecies. Evidence is that the divining power of humanity is close to nil.

Have you asked yourself why peak oil gets so little coverage?

Grunt

1st June 2007, 12:51 AM

Isn't it strange that for some strange reason the supply of all major resources ends up exactly at the same time? Resources are limited. We agree on that. But why would all resources peak at the same time? Our use rate does not necessarily match the existing quantity of a resource, so I would have expected each resource to peak at its own time. Take the price graph of any resource you like, wipe the numbers, and noone could tell what resource it is. They are just the same. How did that happen? Peak oil/copper/whatever does not explain this. Awakening China markets explain increasing demand.

I said we will reach peak in everything, it is just a matter of time. I didn't say they would happen at the same time. The article I linked to said that the largest producer of copper would peak next year. We use an amazing amount of copper, think of all them Ozito drills that get bought and thrown away each year.

Copper had an increase in demand of 4% through out the nineties and that has been increasing. What that means is that over the last 18 or so years, the world has consumed more copper than it EVER has in the past. It's simple exponential growth.

As reasonable as 5% increase.

Where are the discoveries? The discoveries that are being made are smaller and harder to get to. We've got all the easy to get to oil and best quality oil. We're now pumping the sour heavy crude not the sweet light stuff.

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

The evidence I have seen of the presumed peak is also evidence for peak in any other resource, which simply does not make sense.

So you don't think we'll use up all the resources? The world has an endless supply? Every resource will peak at some point.

Again Peak Oil is not about the end of cheap oil. Our economies have grown because of cheap abundant energy. Energy will no longer be cheap and no longer abundant. Our economies will no longer grow.

As soon as we start treating this as certainty instead of a worst case possibility than nothing can be done to prevent it. Instead of working on prevension we will be erecting crap-shields to shield us from flying sheet, and peak-oil becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy. That's counter productive.

No, we need to inform and wake up as many people as possible so we can do the only possible solution to this and that is to power down.

Simply, there are limits to growth. We live in a finite world, therefore growth cannot be infinite.

Learn to be self-sufficient.

Have you asked yourself why peak oil gets so little coverage?

Yes many times. Any government who says to the people, here listen 'we need to stop you buying crap and learn how to feed yourself' will be out of office at the next election.

Some are reasonable, others are just whacky. They all have one thing in common. They are all wrong.

You're thoughts on Climate Change?

Evidence is that the divining power of humanity is close to nil.

I bet you that each collapse of a civilisation had a few voices say 'Hey, we got to stop doing what were are doing or it will end in tears' and they got ignored.

rhancock

1st June 2007, 08:25 AM

Copper had an increase in demand of 4% through out the nineties and that has been increasing. What that means is that over the last 18 or so years, the world has consumed more copper than it EVER has in the past. It's simple exponential growth.

The problem with an exponential graph is that wherever you are on the line, it looks like you're at the peak, so anyone looking at the graph 50years ago would have seen that the growth was steeper than ever before, and in 500 years time, the graph looks steeper than ever. The fact that growth is exponential of itself is not a problem. A problem only arises when supply exceeds demand, which is difficult as predicting the end of something is very hard - imagine drinking a bottle of coke with a straw with your eyes shut - can you predict when you'll get to the bottom?

dazzler

1st June 2007, 08:35 AM

Hey javali

Still Nada on mine?

:D

woodbe

1st June 2007, 09:32 AM

The problem with an exponential graph is that wherever you are on the line, it looks like you're at the peak, so anyone looking at the graph 50years ago would have seen that the growth was steeper than ever before, and in 500 years time, the graph looks steeper than ever. The fact that growth is exponential of itself is not a problem. A problem only arises when supply exceeds demand, which is difficult as predicting the end of something is very hard - imagine drinking a bottle of coke with a straw with your eyes shut - can you predict when you'll get to the bottom?

You sure about that? :)

The problem arises before demand exceeds supply. When the resource industry becomes aware that they will be unable to supply demand some time in the future, they will start artificially limiting supply to maximise their returns, and madly buying up alternative energy sources.

Oh wait.. That's already happening...

http://alt-e.blogspot.com/search/label/bp

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/otherfuels/oil-natural-gas.cfm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/02/two_oil_giants_plunge_into_the_wind_business/

SPIRIT

1st June 2007, 01:08 PM

You're thoughts on Climate Change?

you must take Climate Change in the big picture ,If this dry up just a bit where in the world would be hit hard :rolleyes: There is going to be a war for water soon in the M/E .Take thier income aswell thems some unhappy campers there .

people will debate if it will happen ,it saves them from doing what should be done ,its time wasted

This one way ahead ,when a storm comes in on a farm one of them big black ones
You bring the stock in ,pick anything close to being pick ,get some wood lots a wood ,and lock everything up in the barn and house ,sit out the storm ,then move on

We sould not be selling things like oil, coal, gas ?????,so you must think do you want to have this when everybody will want it also,,,,,,,War what is it good for

Them clouds are forming ,im bringing them cows in

Gra

1st June 2007, 01:22 PM

There is going to be a war for water soon in the M/E

They are already heading that way. Cant remember the details, but on of the M/E countries is damming one of the key rivers, and the downstream water users are getting p@#$ed as it will reduce their water supply dramatically. will have to do a search and find the story

SPIRIT

1st June 2007, 01:51 PM

They are already heading that way. Cant remember the details, but on of the M/E countries is damming one of the key rivers, and the downstream water users are getting p@#$ed as it will reduce their water supply dramatically. will have to do a search and find the storySyria has the water ,and Israel has 20 years water left ,westbank less,, much less .l havent read this anywhere a frend works in the field

rhancock

1st June 2007, 07:56 PM

You sure about that? :)

The problem arises before demand exceeds supply.

Sorry, you're right of course - the problem could already exist, but what I'm trying to point out is the difficulty in identifying whether the point of more demand than supply has been reached or not.

I firmly believe we are raping the planet of dwindling resources, and polluting its environment, but I think that doomsayers predicting global destruction risk portraying the environmental message as only coming from crackpots, and that doesn't help convince the general population.

I would rather focus on what is and can, or could be done to change the way we live our lives.

Going back to the main issue, a key point is that one of the major uses of oil is to transport goods, food etc from where its produced to where its consumed (I'm not the only one who buys Stanley tools!), so one of the easiest ways to cut down oil use is to buy locally produced goods (where they are available and are best suited to our needs - eg Mack? leather goods)