Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 17, 2015
Robert Rapier: Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price
The Origins of Peak Oil Awareness
The scientific study of peak oil began in the 1950′s, when Shell geophysicist M. King Hubbert reported on the evolution of production rates in oil and gas fields. In a 1956 paper Hubbert suggested that oil production in a particular region would approximate a bell curve, increasing exponentially during the early stages of production before eventually slowing, reaching a peak when approximately half of a field had been extracted, and then going into terminal production decline.
Hubbert applied his methodology to oil production for the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas. He estimated that the ultimate potential reserve of the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas was 150 billion barrels of oil. Based on that reserve estimate, the 6.6 million barrels per day (bpd) extraction rate in 1955, and the 52.5 billion barrels of oil that had been previously produced in the US, Hubbert’s base case estimate was that oil production in the US would reach maximum production in 1965. He also estimated that global oil production would peak around the year 2000 at a maximum production rate of 34 million bpd.
Hubbert calculated a secondary case that if the US oil reserve increased to 200 billion barrels (about which he expressed doubts), peak production would occur in 1970, a delay of five years from his base case. Oil production in the US did in fact peak in 1970, so Hubbert is widely credited with precisely calling the US peak, but few know that he was actually skeptical that the peak would take place as late as 1970.
The US has now surpassed Hubbert’s most optimistic estimate for US oil production. Through 2011, cumulative US production stands at ~ 215 billion barrels, with a remaining estimated proved reserve of 48.5 billion barrels (but with the caveat this reserves estimate is based on crude prices near $100/bbl).
The Modern Peak Oil Debate
In the ensuing decades since Hubbert’s original work, discussion of peak oil ebbed and flowed. But the modern peak oil debates really heated up a decade ago. In 2005 the late Matt Simmons, an investment banker to the oil industry, published Twilight in the Desert. The book argued that Saudi Arabia had overstated its oil reserves, that its oil production was on the cusp of terminal decline, and that prices were set to soar.
Oil prices did in fact rise sharply in the 2nd half of 2015 — aided by Hurricane Katrina which hit Gulf Coast oil production in late summer. Oil production in Saudi Arabia also showed signs of slowing. This provided fuel to the fire for Simmons’ argument that the world was about to face terminal oil shortages. (My counterargument at the time was that the Saudis were purposely restricting production).
Simmons published his book in June 2005, and according to Google Trends searches for the phrase “peak oil” peaked in August 2005, but spiked again 2006 and 2008 when oil prices jumped:
Google Trends of Searches for the Phrase “Peak Oil”
Peak Oil Camps
At one extreme of this debate was the camp that believed peak oil was happening at that time (~2005), and that it was going to spell the end of civilization. This camp was often referred to as “doomers”, because they believed that humanity was doomed. (And many haven’t changed from that position). At the other extreme were those who believed technology could continue to squeeze ever more oil out of the ground. This camp was sometimes referred to as the “technocopians.”
Most of us were somewhere in the middle. In 2005 I felt like we still had a few years to go before we reached peak oil. My general position was that we were 3-5 years away at that time, and I spent a lot of time debating the evidence with the imminent peakers. I wrote a number of articles addressing the topic of peak oil (e.g., Five Misconceptions About Peak Oil). My view was that peak oil would cause great hardship, but humanity would survive. We would muddle through and find our way.
Overconfidence in these discussions over peak oil (and peak natural gas) was prevalent. For instance, in 2003 Matt Simmons predicted, with “certainty,” that by 2005 the US would begin a long-term natural gas crisis for which the only solution was “to pray.” This sort of confidence was prominent in the debates. If you had argued at that time that by 2015 US and world oil production would be where they are today, you would have been deemed certifiably insane.
In hindsight, our view on peak oil was pretty naïve. Global oil production was not about to fall off a cliff. The potential for increased production was hand-waved away. But higher oil prices had a much bigger impact on production than most of us would have projected.
I had this idea bouncing around my head that higher prices would spur more oil production, but I agreed with those who argued that there were limits to this and we had to take steps to address the risks. The limits wouldn’t necessarily be technological, but would rather depend on the amount of energy required to extract and process the oil. At some point it simply becomes too energy-intensive, and even if you are using a cheaper source of energy to do the extraction, there comes a point that the cost of energy inputs exceeds the cost of energy extracted. Since the energy inputs and outputs are related via price, it’s a pretty good argument.
It’s Not That Simple
Jeff Rubin – the former chief economist at CIBC World Markets – eventually crystallized in my mind the relationship between peak oil and oil prices. I saw Rubin give a presentation in 2011, and he said something like “Peak oil is a moving target. I think peak oil is in a different place if oil is $150 versus oil at $100.” Then the notion crystallized. You can’t talk about peak oil without talking about oil prices. Why? Because this is what the real world looks like. From a 2012 research note from Goldman Sachs to clients:
Breakeven Price for the World’s Top 360 Oil Projects. Source: Goldman Sachs
The graphic is pretty busy, but the bottom line is that there is a lot of oil that will come online at higher oil prices. How much is truly unknown, but it is estimated to be in the 10′s of millions of barrels. (For those who believe this is unlikely, think back to 2005 and how much chance you would have given for the current levels of oil production). Similar graphics have been produced for the break-even price in shale oil plays, and the message is similar: Higher oil prices will spur oil production in more marginal areas.
So we should really talk about peak oil as a function of oil prices. In that case, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty “The world has passed peak $20 oil.” If we could magically freeze the price of oil at $20, we would see the sort of peak that the imminent peakers projected. That doesn’t mean that oil prices will never again fall to $20, as supply/demand imbalances do wildly swing prices at times. It just means that $20 isn’t a sustainable price for meeting current global demand. That also means that the average price of oil in the future will be much greater than $20, which is why I downplay those predictions of very low oil prices.
But has the world passed peak $100/bbl oil? The answer to that is clearly no. When oil was at $100/bbl, supplies were still rising. Now that prices are less than half that level, global production looks like it is set to fall. So maybe we have past peak $50/bbl oil.
The peak oil story turned out to be more complex than most of us who were debating it could have imagined back in 2005. What we thought was peak oil at that time was just one more cycle in the gyrations of the oil industry. When prices are rising, oil producers spend money as fast as they can to build out capacity. New oil plays become economical. Inevitably, supply outpaces demand and the price crashes. Capital spending slows, marginal oil plays are shut in, and demand catches back up to supply, which drives the price back up.
But what we have seen in this most recent cycle is that the trough isn’t as deep as it has been in the past. This time oil didn’t drop to $10/bbl, but it did spend a lot of time at $100/bbl. That is a sign that we are using up the cheapest oil supplies. The world is highly unlikely to return to an era of $20 oil. The floor has moved higher. Peak oil has moved past the $20 threshold, and most likely the $50 threshold.
Conclusions
To conclude, I want to make one thing clear. Even if there are sufficient oil supplies for several more years, there are many other good reasons for curbing our oil consumption aside from the danger of building a society based on an unsustainable resource. I have covered many of those reasons in other articles.
So don’t mistake this article for advocacy that growing oil supplies invalidate the concerns raised in the peak oil debates. The concerns are still correct. It’s just that the argument itself was too simplistic, and premature. Even though I tended to argue against the imminent peak position, my expectations about peak oil in the decade after 2005 also turned out to be much different than the reality that transpired.
33 Comments on "Robert Rapier: Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price"
Plantagenet on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 7:18 pm
I wish these guys would make up their minds.
For years Rapier and others said that the fact that global oil production rate was INSENSITIVE to price demonstrated we were near peak oil. Oil production went up very little as oil went from 20-148 bucks barrel, i.e. supposedly proving we were near the peak.
Oooopsies. Ten years later and it still isn’t peak oil.
Now they say that global oil production IS dependent on oil price, and thats why we didn’t hitt peak oil in 2005.
The fact of the matter is that George Mitchell —-an oil wildcatter in Texas—-kept trying to frack shales to produce natural gas when conventional wisdom was it wouldn’t work. He eventually succeeded, and then subsequently also fracked shale to produce oil.
Tight shales were, in effect, a new source of oil. Previous peak oil models never considered shale to be a source of oil, so they underestimated total production and were wrong in their predictions of a peak in 2005.
The world is still going to hit peak oil, but now we must consider conventional, unconventional and SHALE OIL in making any estimate of when this will occur.
CHEERS!
Jimmy on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 8:41 pm
Unconventional defines a variety of oil sources and the best that can be said about the specificity of the term is that unconventional oil is a euphemism for expensive oil. Conventional oil has peaked. We will now fart around for sveral years trying to replace conventional production with unconventional production until the wheels fall of the economy and we revert to a new mean. We are transitioning from a resource abundant industrial economy to a resource scarce industrial economy. Soon to be followed by a scavenger economy. After that it will be conditions that I’d suppose rather closely resemble 12 century Europe; to-wit an agricultural based tribal system.
Harquebus on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 8:48 pm
The global economy can not afford $100/bl oil and producers can not increase production without it. It is debt that has filled the void and that too is peaking. Next will be peak population.
jjhman on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 9:11 pm
Robert Rapier is one of the more cogent writers on energy issues but I think that peak oil is more complex than he suggests in this article. The state of the economy, world wide, determines what the affordability of oil is. As a result, sometimes we can get a supply/demand balance at $50/bbl. Sometimes it takes $100/bbl. If, as some suspect, there are going to be fewer affluent enough to afford $100 oil, then we may see a situation where the price of oil, which drives investment, falling not because of a glut but because above some apparently low value the demand isn’t there any longer.
Nony on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 10:23 pm
Cost curves are a normal tool for looking at commodity industries (PVC, aluminum refining, etc. etc.). Oil is a little different with the depletion dynamic, but still if you’ve seen it in plastics, you should have already understood the concept for oil. For This is a fundamental week one econ concept (supply curve).
For that matter, it’s easy to look at things like Canada, even in 2005 and see how a tranche of price-enabled* tar sands kicked in and caused a breakout from a previous peak.
Or one can make the thought experiment of how much oil is available at prices that enable “synfuels” (kerogen conversion) or GTL or CTL. Note I’m not saying there is enough demand at these prices, but the point is a thought experiment. If you think about these extremes, then it should become obvious that there are finer segments just within conventional, deepwater, etc. of capacity at different price points.
Note that this does not argue that oil will never peak. As there is less demand at higher prices also. And evolution of the demand, China growth, substitute competition, etc. will impact volume available in future to pay higher prices. (The different elasticities of short and long term response are another complication…but what we care about here is “long”.)
*Technology too, but the point remains.
BC on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 10:55 pm
I continue to assert that no more than 10% of the population ACTUALLY understands Peak Oil, net energy, and exergy, and probably no more than ~1% understand Jeffrey Brown’s ELM and available net oil exports (ANE) and “Limits to Growth”.
What most of us who are even aware and “think” we know is largely incomplete, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
But we’re not supposed to actually understand Peak Oil and its implications, for if we did, a large enough plurality of the population would internalize a comprehensive understanding and then act on the basis of the understanding, threatening BAU and the credibility and legitimacy of the Establishment consensus.
BC on Thu, 17th Sep 2015 11:02 pm
Plant, I don’t recall if you have ever conceded that, despite the boom/bubble in kerogen production, it is barely a blip along the 45-year US log-linear oil depletion regime per capita, which has declined 45% per capita since 1970. What do you suppose will occur once the depletion regime’s trajectory declines to near 50% as is likely be no later than late decade or early next decade?
Any guesses? If you don’t know, ask short, who will be happy to inform you, no doubt.
In this context, and given that the 3-, 5-, and 10-year prices of WTI are at ~$100, there is no “glut” of “affordable” crude oil and its costlier, lower-quality substitutes.
If one does not understand that, one does not understand Peak Oil, net energy, and exergy, which in turn implies one won’t be prepared for the implications of Peak Oil and the post-Oil Age epoch’s collapse regime.
GregT on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 1:35 am
“Cost curves are a normal tool for looking at commodity industries (PVC, aluminum refining, etc. etc.). Oil is a little different with the depletion dynamic, but still if you’ve seen it in plastics, you should have already understood the concept for oil. For This is a fundamental week one econ concept (supply curve).”
A couple of small problems with your narrow eCON-101 view Nony.
1: Oil is not like any other commodity, it is the energy source that runs almost every single part of modern industrial society.
2: Oil has no known substitute. I know that this might be hard for you to believe, with all of your voodoo indoctrination, but it might be a good idea for you to pay attention.
3: Modern technology requires fossil fuels. Take the energy source out of the equation, and technology returns back to the 1600s.
This stuff isn’t exactly rocket science Nony.
GregT on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 1:53 am
“If one does not understand that, one does not understand Peak Oil, net energy, and exergy, which in turn implies one won’t be prepared for the implications of Peak Oil and the post-Oil Age epoch’s collapse regime.”
You’re flogging a dead horse BC. Planter is obviously incapable of understanding much more than two words. ‘Oil’ and ‘glut’. That, and Obama is responsible for everything that could possibly go wrong in the world.
Davy on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 3:06 am
Oil is different. It is in a class all to itself. While it can behave like other commodities it also can wag the entire global economies tail. We see a convergence of what the economy needs for a minimum operating level and what the oil industry needs. This convergence is depletion in the oil industry and limits of growth and declining marginal return on efforts in the global system. This convergence is reinforcing and negative. All the other predicaments and problems are further influencing this negative convergence.
Demand is being destroyed in an economy unhealthy at multiple levels. Over population and over consumption in a world increasingly at limits and with less ability to solve problems. The financial system is repressed with artificially low rates and quantitative easing further distorting demand and supply.
If rates would not have gone as low as they did and quantitative easing would not have occurred how much capital would have gone into shales and other expensive oils? I feel and many others the shale blow out was driven by yield seeking by cheap money seeking profit from artificially high commodity prices.
Now this orgy of financial/commodity arbitrage low cost money seeking high yields is over. The commodity super cycle is over. China’s and Asia’s malignant growth is over. Not because the global economy doesn’t want these commodities. It is because the global economy can’t afford them per its operational level potential. That potential has dropped. Commodity supply across a wide spectrum is going to suffer further hurting demand by lowering potential supply and increasing cost by lower economies of scale. If oil price comes back, as it may, supply will have been damaged.
Demand destruction, deflation, and entropic decay appears to be overcoming growth. Cornucopians love to crow we are still growing. I will retort what kind of growth? The quality and quantity of growth is suspect. Should we consider excess capacity and failed investments as growth? No. How can we accept all the excessive interventions and manipulations of statistics goal seeking a growth level?
I see us at a tipping point systematically. This is happening in multiple areas. Growth momentum is giving way to the inertia of deflation and entropic decay. Oil is in its normal depletion process from over 100 years of active production. That depletion is wagging the global economies tail but oil is also getting wagged by a global economies failing economic efficiency. The global economy is losing growth momentum as its entropy pressures are increasing.
In a different world with global society built differently expensive oil and less oil may not have been an issue so quick. Any society built on finite resources is doomed but some are more doomed than others. We are the worst adapted.
Lower populations and consumption pressures would have allowed a different dynamics. Unfortunately we chose the wrong path post WWII. Economics and technology won out over traditional lifestyles of hundreds of generations. We multiplied, modernized, and increased consumption levels because economist told us this was good. Technology became an addiction. Efficiency even when destructive was the name of the game.
Back in my corporate days I endured multiple management training seminars. They always puked destructive change is good. Embrace destructive change because that is progress. Now look where we are with that numb nut thinking. This craziness is still alive and well today. The whole failed economic and technological modus operandi is still dominant despite complete failure.
More with less instead of resilience and sustainability. Human competition in wars hot and cold drove this development and increasing competition. A society that may have resisted it was consumed by one who embraced it. Our collective psychopathic side won out over our higher level spirituality. This points to man and his evolutionary dead end large brain. We have abilities we cannot control socially and spiritually.
A people resisting excessive population and consumption would have been superior to one like ourselves today bent on population and consumption growth above all else Even without the achievements a society of sobriety, humility, and simplicity would have been paradoxically far superior. Those achievements have come back to haunt us. We have destroyed a beautiful world in the name of exceptionalism and progress. We are less with more. Oil is a part of this just as we are a part of oil. Without oil this craziness would never have occurred.
onlooker on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 4:26 am
Magnificent overview of our current condition Davy. The ruinous nature of our economic, political and social patterns has now become so clear. Politics is hopelessly corrupted, economics is beyond redemption with its growth paradigm and inability to adapt to a much different world now. Society is a diffusion of self-consumed rather simplistic minds entrapped in a collective that refuses to even admit something is terribly wrong. Our obsession with growth is analogous to a child’s yearning for more and more toys. We were never a wise species though we displayed cleverness and technological prowess. I can only hope that perhaps some morsel of society can endure that will take into account our awful over-exuberance borne of the oil age and it’s particularly disgusting corollaries and LEARN not to ever go down that path again.
rockman on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 5:13 am
jj – I agree with you. “So we should really talk about peak oil as a function of oil prices.” I don’t want to seem too picky but da! LOL. PO is about the dynamics of the oil production rate which is connected at the hip to drilling activity be it conventional, unconventional, Deep Water etc. And since the first days of the oil extraction industry drilling activity has been a function of profitability as determined by price of oil AND the ability of consumers to afford that price. As you point out oil prices are not solely a function of the extraction cost but ability of the economies to function at any specific price point. And that price varies significantly over time as economic vitality fluctuates.
Obviously we’ve just seen a good example of that dynamic: increased economic vitality allowed the higher oil prices required to develop unconventional reservoirs. The technology existed to develop those reservoirs existed long before the boom…but not the high oil prices. And now the drag on the economies inflicted by those high prices have caught up and they can no longer be afforded.
At least in the short term we have reached peak oil – US shale. Long term…time will tell. But obviously PO-USS was not a result of geology. In the early days there were huge arguments over the geologic factor as if it were the sole limitation. As we are witnessing today the current peak in US oil production has not been a function of geology but rather related to economic vitality. A vitality metered by the price of oil.
Beery on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 8:18 am
Robert Rapier is right, right up until geology becomes more important.
RobertRapier on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 9:25 am
“For years Rapier and others said that the fact that global oil production rate was INSENSITIVE to price demonstrated we were near peak oil. Oil production went up very little as oil went from 20-148 bucks barrel, i.e. supposedly proving we were near the peak.”
You have that exactly backwards. I never argued any such thing. I always argued that we weren’t quite at peak oil, and I frequently talked about the oil boom and bust cycles (which are price-driven). But I never distilled the peak oil argument into “We have past peak $20 oil.” That wasn’t the sort of argument anyone made 10 years ago.
You must have me confused with someone else, because I was always the guy who urged caution when making conclusions. I probably had more arguments with people at The Oil Drum against the imminent peak oil position than any other person who wrote there. And I took a lot of verbal darts for doing so.
RobertRapier on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 9:27 am
“If, as some suspect, there are going to be fewer affluent enough to afford $100 oil, then we may see a situation where the price of oil, which drives investment, falling not because of a glut but because above some apparently low value the demand isn’t there any longer.”
A number of people have made this argument, but as long a demand continues to rise then that’s not why oil prices are falling.
RobertRapier on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 9:30 am
“Robert Rapier is right, right up until geology becomes more important.”
Geology is always important. That’s why the Goldman Sachs graphic looks like it does. Geology and location. The breaking point will come about when the cost of the energy inputs approaches the cost of the energy outputs. It isn’t necessarily when EROEI approaches 1, because you could use a low value input to get less of a high value output. But eventually it will be an energy input/output issue that determines how much oil will never be produced.
Nony on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 10:01 am
Technology (broadly defined) is an important factor also as it lowers the cost required to get different resources (i.e. increases the amount of oil reachable at a given price).
“The cost and price of any mineral are constantly pushed in two opposing directions. Depletion pushes the supply curve toward the left, while growing knowledge pushes it rightward. Depletion does not result from a limited mineral stock, the “economic portion” of hydrocarbons inground.
The “economic” portion itself changes.”
Morris Adelman, Crude Oil Supply Curves, 1998.
shortonoil on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 10:44 am
“So we should really talk about peak oil as a function of oil prices.”
A seductive argument, but unfortunately incorrect. Money (currency) is created out of thin air every minute of every day. Not a singular BTU has ever been created from the magic of fractional reserve banking; it has just created the promise of a BTU that may, or may not be there.
Rapier, like most legitimate investigators into petroleum, have fallen for the dollar poxy fallacy. It is not the price of oil that drives its production, it is the dollar price versus value to the economy relationship that drives its production. A dollar of production cost must be offset by a dollar of created economic activity, or petroleum would not be produced. The money would not exist to produce it.
When a unit of petroleum could power $100 of economic activity it was worth $100. That fell to $75, and it became worth $75. It has since fallen to about $68, and is now selling for $47. The price of oil is a moving target, and that target is moving at the rate of its depletion. That is, depletion in terms of its ability to power the economy, not the quantity of it buried in the ground.
We have explicitly defined the price of oil versus its value to the economy relationship with the Etp Model. It is an energy Model, but dollars can be used as a proxy for BTU; if one realizes that they are just a proxy.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
BC on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 12:25 pm
short, that’s about as well said as I’ve ever heard/read.
Put slightly differently, the US ceased being able to afford to sustain an industrial economy from domestic crude oil resources in the 1970s-80s when US oil production per capita peaked and commenced its inexorable log-linear depletion regime to date.
As a consequence, we replaced domestic goods production and value-added labor product as a share of GDP with offshoring production and growth of debt-money to substitute for falling labor share of GDP and no growth of real wages.
Now the rest of the world is approaching, or has reached, the same situation since 2005-08 as the US in the late 1970s.
We are in a situation in which US oil production per capita is at the level of the late 1940s and the debt-money-adjusted value per capita of US oil production is below the levels of the 1950s-60s and at the levels of the 1930s-40s.
Put yet another way, the US has a debt-money-equivalent level of domestic oil and goods-production capacity per capita of the Great Depression through WW II.
The resulting deflation ahead will further reduce the growth of debt-money supply (outside propping up banks and funding the fiscal deficit) and thus demand for commodities, assets, goods, and services at decelerating prices. Already the bottom 50-80% of Americans must subsist on real, after-tax purchasing power of the 1920s-30s to 1950s, with the very real potential for purchasing power falling to the level of the late 19th century as the post-Oil Age epoch progresses hereafter.
shortonoil on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 2:36 pm
“short, that’s about as well said as I’ve ever heard/read.”
Thanks
“Put yet another way, the US has a debt-money-equivalent level of domestic oil and goods-production capacity per capita of the Great Depression through WW II.”
By our calculations by the time the average barrel of petroleum has reached the “dead state”, which we project to be in 2030, the average American’s income will have the purchasing power equivalent to what it was in 1915.
To appreciate that statement all one has to do is realize that in 1915 60% of households in the US did not yet have electricity. Over the next 15 years many nation states that did not exist in 1915 will simply vanish. In the post industrial world that we are now entering many parts of the world will simply disappear from the radar of areas that are still functioning on some level. They will return to the status of mythology from which they came!
Davy on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 3:30 pm
This is in line with what Short just said. We need a return to the land similar but not the same as the early 20th century. This is for survival primarily. Food production is going to drop dramatically in just a few years.
American agriculture and rural life underwent a tremendous transformation in the 20th century. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce, along with 22 million work animals, and produced an average of five different commodities. The agricultural sector of the 21st century, on the other hand, is concentrated on a small number of large, specialized farms in rural areas where less than a fourth of the U.S. population lives. These highly productive and mechanized farms employ a tiny share of U.S. workers and use 5 million tractors in place of the horses and mules of earlier days.
MrNoItAll on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 3:45 pm
Thanks BC, shortonoil and Davy (and others) for keeping the comments informative, enlightened and fact-based. With penultimate Neanderthal-brained loser Plant and a host of Nony sock puppets attempting (and sometimes succeeding) in dominating the comments section, it is great to return to this site from time to time and find that there is still a sliver of intelligence and sharp perception shining through the thick layer of stupidity that those miscreants excrete.
Boat on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 7:45 pm
Davy,
Yes. That is why 95% of people were farmers in 1900. 5% now.
Davy on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 8:10 pm
Boat, don’t you see something wrong with the numbers of where we are and where we will need to be closer to. I say closer to because we are SOL in regards to having a solution. We can only start th process and hope for the best.
My most important point on this board is a return to the land of as many people as can be reasonably moved back. That is a simple plan in a complex world. Sure there is some devil in the detail. It is nonetheless vital we inject resilience and sustainability into our food chain and this needed to be started yesterday.
apneaman on Fri, 18th Sep 2015 9:15 pm
Davy, boat couldn’t see the ocean if he was standing on the end of the pier. He is blind and so is most everyone else. Economics trumps all else.
VW Is Said to Cheat on Diesel Emissions; U.S. Orders Big Recall
“The Environmental Protection Agency accused the German automaker of using software to detect when the car is undergoing its periodic state emissions testing. Only during such tests are the cars’ full emissions control systems turned on. During normal driving situations, the controls are turned off, allowing the cars to spew as much as 40 times as much pollution as allowed under the Clean Air Act, the E.P.A. said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html?_r=1
Boat on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 10:49 am
Davy,
There are almost 300 million to be moved back to the land in the US alone under your scenario. Impossible. Talk about a debt bubble to pay for that.
Davy on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 11:43 am
Boat, I would recommend 50MIL people as a start. That is 1/2 the 1915 population of the US. Boat, that kind of disruption will end the debt matter because the economy as we know it would be over. We will pay for it all with blood, sweat, and tears like has always been the case in great disruptions. Don’t worry it won’t happen on the cornucopians watch.
I am only offering a viable solution. Personally I feel it is the “Only” viable solution. We could make it work if all of us wanted to but there would be no turning back. Cornucopians like you are in charge so this is just academic thinking on my part. Back to the land will happen Boat but not by choice. People will migrate back to the land by necessity to produce food or they will die. You may be one of them Boat. You will remember me when you are eating crow.
GregT on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 11:52 am
Boat said:
“There are almost 300 million to be moved back to the land in the US alone under your scenario. Impossible.”
Absolutely correct Boat. The choice is still yours whether or not you want to be among those who do.
GregT on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 12:10 pm
What I find so interesting about the doomer/cornie narrative, is that ‘doomer’ is painted negatively, while ‘cornie’ is somehow thought to be positive. There is nothing positive what-so-ever about failing to prepare for troubling circumstances. If anything, I would consider that to be both a negative, and foolish.
Since our recent change in lifestyle, our lives have become better in so many ways. No more noise pollution, clean fresh air, and peace of mind to name a few. People are much more laid back, and personable. If modern industrial society were to last beyond my lifetime, I would still consider our choice to be a net positive. If it doesn’t, we have options, and a plan.
Cornies, on the other hand, will still be living the same lives that they are now IF modern industrial society lasts for several more decades. If it doesn’t, they are setting themselves up for the worst misery one could ever imagine, and all signs point to exactly that.
Which leads me to the conclusion;
Doomers are a positive group of people, who are not afraid of adversity and a challenge.
Cornies are overall negative, and are afraid of change.
rockman on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 12:43 pm
Robert – “Geology is always important.” Very true. Perhaps I overemphasized my point about the economics. The geology (better said: reservoir dynamics) of the shales is critical in the sense that it controls the cost of development. The oil in the Eagle Ford has been known for more that 60 years. The technology to horizontally drill and frac it was well understood and available by the mid 90’s. What was lacking was a high enough oil price to justify the effort.
And while some folks still don’t care much for the POD view because of its wide range, the EFS example (including the recent slump in drilling) can’t be evaluated by focusing solely on individual factors such as the oil price, geology, technology, debt levels, economic vitality (or lack thereof), political instability, etc.
Fossil fuel extraction is a complex SYSTEM. And analysis of any system that doesn’t include all the influential factors will always be lacking.
onlooker on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 12:52 pm
Right on the mark Greg. Surprisingly these ranges of traits that separate doomers from cornies seem also to separate conservatives from liberals. It does appear that conservatives are not ready to accept or concede that the world can or will change drastically while liberals seem more ready for new experiences and challenges. here is link to an article detailing a study that was conducted exploring these differences between conservatives and liberals. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fascinating-differences-between-conservative-and-liberal-personality
Davy on Sat, 19th Sep 2015 12:52 pm
Greg, you coined a new narrative! The doom/corn paradox. Dooms are looked upon as the most negative are actually the positive ones and corns in reality the negative ones in denial with no solutions.
Kenz300 on Sun, 20th Sep 2015 7:23 am
Buy a bicycle or use mass transit…….
Worry less about the price of oil…….
The more we diversify our options the better….
Cities needs to become more people centered and less auto centered. Walkable and bike able cities are more sustainable.