[Pops]

The point in this article is just the same as in several others I've linked recently, Gail states it right up front
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '1'). Our number one energy problem is a rapidly rising need for investment capital,

[dissident]

Capitalism's dirty little secret: it can't function without cheap resource and energy inputs.

The danger in some of this analysis is that it begins to look as if the access to oil is restricted by financial constraints. It is not obvious that cranking the oil price will lead to the required amount of supply. At some stage no price can induce enough production due to physical (geological) constraints. At least half of the oil will stay behind in Ghawar once it transitions from oil flow to water flow (emulsion inversion). But will open pit mining let us get the rest out? How much energy and time would it take to dig up all that rock? We are looking at spending a few dozen BTUs for every BTU extracted. There is no way to price this activity, it's like burning money.

After the few boutique cases like the Bakken are exhausted, we are back to kerogen derived oil as the main non-conventional prospect. The fact that Shell pulled out of their 40+ year pilot project tells me that the economic viability of this activity is not rosy. It seems to me like kerogen processing is analogous to digging up Ghawar to get the remaining oil out. The attempts to convert the kerogen into oil in situ do not appear to work.

[Quinny]

There are only so many rabbits that can be pulled out of hats, and eventually; the divergence of the $ economy from real wealth; physical constraints will trump QE or any other measures used. I find Gail's timescale distubing, but understandable. Has she made any other predictions that have been way out of line?

[lasseter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AndyA', ' ')Money is imaginary, and as such not subject to the laws of physics and geology. If I was in charge of keeping the monetary system going, I'd never give up and say 'oh well, fuck it, I tried' which is what would need to happen. The guys running the show are smart, have spent their lives devoted to this kind of thing. It's naïve to assume they know less about the situation then an armchair analyst.

[kiwichick]

@ pops

nice p-o-p-s!

but my prediction is that govts will bring in rationing so that the essential services and products can continue

carpooling is one obvious way to cope with a sudden increase in price and/or reduction in supply

again WW2 is the obvious example; food and fuel were severly restricted (and yes people did try to get round the system) but most people survived, even with the enemy dropping bombs constantly

you would hope that govts would direct most effort in a "crash" program to transition to a more sustainable system

thats my hope anyway

[Loki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'C')all it Peak Oil Profits, POPs for short. LOL.

[AndyA]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hey have tried many times and in many ways to perpetuate the monitary systems after they have reached the debt saturation point. (the point where entities collectively can never repay the loan and are struggling just to repay interest) They have never succeeded though and the only way out of the dilemma is to crash the economy, like in the 1930's, and then start again a decade or 2 later when most of the debt has been cleared. A cursory look at any debt clearly shows the phenomina.

[RobertInget]

Currently, enormous amounts of 'oil capital' is being diverted into what is euphemistically called 'defence' spending. Saudi Arabia is committed to hundreds of billions in arms purchases. KSA, instead of building infrastructure "for a better tomorrow" is buying missiles from China, the latest in tanks from Germany, drones and fighter aircraft anti tank missiles from the US.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013 ... ping-spree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal
http://www.ibtimes.com/saudi-arabia-pro ... underlines
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... it_will_ne

Nukes Too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

WE all believe we have some understanding of Israel's position.
Here's another oil state plowing billion into weapons instead if oil
gathering: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/65053

Iran has been under sanctions for the last few years. This only means its
rearming is somewhat less obvious, public nevertheless.

I'm NOT here to argue usefulness of outmoded weapons like tanks or
nuclear weapons for that matter. Only pointing out oil states including the US, spend inordinate (insane) amounts on so called 'defense'..
How 'fighting the last wars generals' think more tanks fit into a
"war on terror" I'm not sure.

The unthinkable would be to convert all that creative thinking, funding, labor, away from weapons and redirect towards sustainable energies.

World hunger crisis brought on not by 'peaked oil' or GW, but sectarian violence.
There are currently Four Million hungry Syrian refugees slowly working their way into Eastern Europe from Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq and so on. Add one and a half million literally starving Sudanese
placing enormous strains on food stocks in neighboring states.
Even with droughts in Africa, Australia, central US we could feed enough to keep peace if NGO aid agencies were permitted access.
For these folks there is no speculation as to when their worlds fall apart.

It would be guessing to blame oil or religion or nationalism or corruption
for this already deadly situation, so I will.

[TheAntiDoomer]

oh lord, I wish I had the time and energy to Audit all of Gail's nutty predictions.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheAntiDoomer', 'o')h lord, I wish I had the time and energy to Audit all of Gail's nutty predictions.

[lasseter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AndyA', '
')Debt saturation as you define it(the point where entities collectively can never repay the loan and are struggling just to repay interest), can be infinitely delayed by reducing interest as just one example. A reduction in an interest rate of say 0.01% to 0.001% would double the saturation point.

[Pops]

Gail, being the PO doomer that we all know and love, has a new post which argues that GW will not exceed the IPCCs lowest estimate simply because collapse, in the form of the sharkfin plot below, will provide the ultimate carbon reduction program.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')Lists possible scenarios] If any of these scenarios takes place and snowballs to a collapse of today’s economy, I expect that a rapid decline in fossil fuel consumption of all kinds will take place. This decline is likely to be more rapid than modeled in the RCP2.6 Scenario. The RCP2.6 Scenario assumes that anthropogenic carbon emissions will still be at 84% of 2010 levels in 2030. In comparison, my expectation (Figure 3, below) is that fossil fuel use (and thus anthropogenic carbon emissions) will be at a little less than 40% of 2010 levels in 2030.

[americandream]

China is the canary in this instance so watch it carefully. It is an FDI blackhole and still vacuuming up much of the world's investment capital which suggests a buoyancy in growth expectations. When this plateaus and then starts to show a consistency in declining, I would suggest that all is not well in Denmark.

For the moment however, I have no reason to believe that global capitalism is faltering. It goes through its periodic cycles but the big one has yet to start in my opinion.

[Newfie]

Kinda like hoping for lock jaw, to stop your drinking problem.

But, yeah, let's hope she is right.

One of the more depressing stories has been all the new unconventional carbon. It just makes the final fall harder.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', ' ')we don't have the willpower for the prior or the energy for the later.

But we're saved in spite of ourselves; be careful what you wish for . . .

.

[ROCKMAN]

Charts like above always baffle me. So coal consumption will decline? Let's look a simple history: from 1930 to 1990 (a period of relatively abundant oil and NG) the global energy consumption from coal increased about 150%. Or about 2.5% per year in a fairly even rate. From 1990 to 2010 (a period of rapidly rising oil/NG prices) the energy gained from coal increased 180%. Or about 9% with a building slope. So the chart projects a decline in coal consumption because oil and NG will become less available/avoidable??? I can see where one might develop such wishful thinking for the sake of the environment. But based upon every bit of evidence we've seen of the dynamic of fossil fuel consumption since the beginning of the industrial age I fail to see the logic. Perhaps alts will take the wind out of coal's sails. But on the next year or two? We hear story after story about how much more affordable the alts have become but we still see significant consistent increases in coal consumption especially by developing economies. One is certainly free to make projections on either basis: hopeful expectations or documented trends. Each can pick as they wish.

[dissident]

The IPCC is grossly underestimating CH4 emissions from natural sources induced by warming. So far there is no indication of CO2 emissions decline and in fact it has accelerated in the last several years. Even if peak fossil fuels is sharp and severe, it will take centuries for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to decline. So there will not be any sustained cooling before 2100 and the locked-in warming from existing CO2 levels (which are still increasing) will continue. The e-folding rate for CO2 often thrown around as being 100 years is BS (It is not a simple exponential since the sinks are functions of the temperature history, see David Archer's papers for more.)

And, as ROCKMAN points out, coal burning is not going to stop any time soon.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dissident', 'T')he IPCC is grossly underestimating CH4 emissions from natural sources induced by warming. So far there is no indication of CO2 emissions decline and in fact it has accelerated in the last several years. Even if peak fossil fuels is sharp and severe, it will take centuries for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to decline. So there will not be any sustained cooling before 2100 and the locked-in warming from existing CO2 levels (which are still increasing) will continue. The e-folding rate for CO2 often thrown around as being 100 years is BS (It is not a simple exponential since the sinks are functions of the temperature history, see David Archer's papers for more.)

And, as ROCKMAN points out, coal burning is not going to stop any time soon.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'C')harts like above always baffle me. So coal consumption will decline? Let's look a simple history: from 1930 to 1990 (a period of relatively abundant oil and NG) the global energy consumption from coal increased about 150%. Or about 2.5% per year in a fairly even rate. From 1990 to 2010 (a period of rapidly rising oil/NG prices) the energy gained from coal increased 180%. Or about 9% with a building slope. So the chart projects a decline in coal consumption because oil and NG will become less available/avoidable??? I can see where one might develop such wishful thinking for the sake of the environment. But based upon every bit of evidence we've seen of the dynamic of fossil fuel consumption since the beginning of the industrial age I fail to see the logic. Perhaps alts will take the wind out of coal's sails. But on the next year or two? We hear story after story about how much more affordable the alts have become but we still see significant consistent increases in coal consumption especially by developing economies. One is certainly free to make projections on either basis: hopeful expectations or documented trends. Each can pick as they wish.

[GHung]

What happens to global temps when/if humans slow/stop adding gigatons of particulates to the air? It's been posited that a feedback loop of warming will occur due to a clearer atmosphere, while the greenhouse gasses remain. Do particulate emissions help hold global warming in check to some extent?