Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

1st post! Question to Peakville!

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Draco » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 11:07:23

Since clearly there isn't ample and reliable reporting of accurate oil reserves(Specially from OPEC) and the Bush admin has manipulated oil for the fall elections while still lining the pockets of his campaign contributors, along with the Sands/Shales which are operational on a smaller scale and the clean oil tech being developed...


Maybe this isn't going to be TEOTWAWKI after all?
User avatar
Draco
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed 25 Jan 2006, 04:00:00

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby gnm » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 11:34:43

OK Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

2. Our economy, industry, banking and investment systems are based on growth.

3. Observed declines in production and reserves discoveries strongly indicate that it is not possible to even maintainin current consumption levels for 10 years.

4. Given (3). then we can only resolve our delimma by massive conservation combined with taking advantage of every available alternative. That includes nuclear, biofuel, CTL, wind, etc... Such efforts MIGHT mitigate (3.) But would preclude (2.)

So what do you think the outcome of the not too distant future will be?

a. A voluntary sweeping social and economic change to a sustainable future by slow powerdown, conservation and alternatives programs.

b. War. war and more war as various world powers fight over whats left to maintain thier currently unsustainable societies.

c. Progressive and relentless collapse of infrastructure and economies combined with a ever declining standard of living.

d. both b and c

Keep in mind that if some states or groups take option a. then its very likely that those choosing option b. will simply take what they have. Attempting to feed (both men and machines) a sufficent defensive military to prevent that is unlikely to be compatible with a. since they will be in a negative growth economy.

Anyways thats my synopsis... And its worth exactly what you paid... :lol:

-G [smilie=headbang.gif]
gnm
 

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 12:20:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2'). Our economy, industry, banking and investment systems are based on growth.

3. Observed declines in production and reserves discoveries strongly indicate that it is not possible to even maintainin current consumption levels for 10 years.

Observed declines in production are often at flat pricing, where its just cheaper to pump somewhere else than to spend money on infrastructure for enhanced recovery.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '4'). Given (3). then we can only resolve our delimma by massive conservation combined with taking advantage of every available alternative. That includes nuclear, biofuel, CTL, wind, etc... Such efforts MIGHT mitigate (3.) But would preclude (2.)

So what do you think the outcome of the not too distant future will be?

Massive infrastructure growth in CTL, shale oil, oil sands, all supported by nuclear.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby joewp » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 12:46:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.


Are you under the impression that constant growth in a finite environment can continue indefinitely?
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Last_Laff » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 12:51:15

Thats pretty much the other side of the fence keeps saying.
User avatar
Last_Laff
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Niagara » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:01:56

Welcome Draco. Nice first post, you raise an interesting question.

The very long-term picture seems inescapable. The earth's current population is not sustainable without petroleum. Therefore a population collapse seems inevitable.

The nearer-term transition period is debatable. I don't believe our civilization will just 'roll over and die'. I think many of us underestimate the power of revolutionary change. We tend to assume oil demand is inelastic.

I think oil depletion can be successfully mitigated for a long time, in fact there will even be some positives; like a cleaner environment and numerous economic opportunities.

For instance:

-consider gasoline demand. Simply reducing the speed limit back to 55 mph would save billions of gallons ConocoPhillips Link

-think of the millions of commuters who drive back and forth to useless jobs.
ABC Corp makes widgets. But how many employees commute to ABC? The Systems Administrator to maintain the network. So the Exchange Administrator can provide email. So the Business Analyst can fire an email to the Systems Analyst (rather than get of his arse and walk over). Who in turn consults the DBA who works with the Team Leads, Web Developers and Testers.... on it goes. None of these people are involved in the task at hand, making widgets.

-the advertising industry can go. I don't need network television commercials to tell me I need to buy Colgate toothpaste. My mommy taught me to brush my teeth. When I need toothpaste I know where to find it.

-don't think a cataclysmic paradigm shift is impossible. In one decade computers and the I.T. industry revolutionized business. Oil depletion will force drastic changes in the way we work.

-consider real estate agents, investment bankers, lawyers, mutual fund salespeople, stock brokers, etc. What do they contribute towards our basic needs of food clothing and shelter? All of them will hang up their hats and stop burning gasoline to and from the office.

-just as the great Warehouse on Wheels (Walmart) destroyed Main Street America, we will see a revitalization of local tradespeople and community markets post peak.
How many homes today have sewing machines in them? Who needs to sew curtains when I can go to Walmart and buy petroleum (PVC) miniblinds for $20/window. We will need seamstresses, tailors, cobblers, carpenters, cabinet makers, glaziers, furniture builders, locksmiths and you name it. Currently we live in a throwaway society. Don't fix it, replace at Home Depot/Walmart

-forget the 2000 mile Caesar Salads. There will be a huge need for locally grown produce, creating enormous opportunites.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those corny-copians. Peakoil spells the end of our society as we know it. But at the same time a balanced view is needed. Peakoil will surely have some silver lining to it.

Just my $0.022 (CAD)
Remember: 73.3% of statistics are made up
and the other 23.6% are wrong
User avatar
Niagara
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu 17 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Mt. Hubbert Scenic Lookout

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:04:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.


Are you under the impression that constant growth in a finite environment can continue indefinitely?

This is a strawman.

Growth can continue until we peak total avaliable resources, and where the disagreement comes from is what our total avaliable resources are. 1 trillion tons of uranium goes a long way.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby dinopello » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:08:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.


Are you under the impression that constant growth in a finite environment can continue indefinitely?


Perhaps the infinite growth poster is thinking of a black hole singularity? Black holes are formed when a fixed mass collapses into a infintesimally small volume and then begins to suck in everything - even spacetime. Well, if you have a finite volume and the mass or internals continue to grow, could it become like a black hole and suck in spacetime itself? I do hear that existance inside a black hole might not be so enjoyable, but anyway its just a theory. I am not a theoretical physicist BTW.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby gnm » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:13:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')bserved declines in production are often at flat pricing, where its just cheaper to pump somewhere else than to spend money on infrastructure for enhanced recovery.


Huh? Are you saying that (for instance) the USA is not pumping as much any more because its just cheaper to import it from a hostile country halfway around the world and thats why US domestic production declined?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')Massive infrastructure growth in CTL, shale oil, oil sands, all supported by nuclear.


Right, like I said CTL etc. I wonder what the impact of all that CO2 would be on food production and climate related problems? Plants need CO2 to grow right? So we should be able to triple our food production in the next 50 years to meet the 15 Billion people that endless growth will produce. :roll:

Unless thorium reactors are perfected I don't see where you would have enough nuclear fuel to mitigate the declines in oil production much less cook up all the tar sands. I agree nuclear needs to be done but I think those kind of levels would be unrealistic. CTL and other nastiness WILL be done so the elite/military etc have enough go-juice but not so we can collectively commute 40 miles a day from suburbia.

-G
gnm
 
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 13:48:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Niagara', '-')think of the millions of commuters who drive back and forth to useless jobs.


What wil they do for a living?

How will the destruction of all the "useless" industries affect the economy?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby NeoPeasant » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 14:39:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Niagara', '-')think of the millions of commuters who drive back and forth to useless jobs.


What wil they do for a living?

How will the destruction of all the "useless" industries affect the economy?

Well we're going to have to come up with a better plan than running a giant waste machine aka the economy full blast so that the maximum number of people can collect a paycheck. That strategy is going to start failing in a big way.
The battle to preserve our lifestyle has already been lost. The battle to preserve our lives is just beginning.
NeoPeasant
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 14:53:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', 'W')ell we're going to have to come up with a better plan than running a giant waste machine aka the economy full blast so that the maximum number of people can collect a paycheck. That strategy is going to start failing in a big way.


I agree. That's why I'm asking "what will people do for a living?" I'd like to see some other people address this when they say we can "mitigate peak oil by doing away with all the useless industries." What do they propose to replace them?
Ludi
 
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby joewp » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:03:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.


Are you under the impression that constant growth in a finite environment can continue indefinitely?

This is a strawman.

Growth can continue until we peak total avaliable resources, and where the disagreement comes from is what our total avaliable resources are. 1 trillion tons of uranium goes a long way.


It's not a strawman, gnm said growth can't continue and you said you don't agree on that.

And no, growth can't continue until we "peak total available resources". It can only continue until the least available resource peaks. For example, assuming your 1 trillion tons of uranium is correct, what makes you think we'll get all that out of the ground once oil peaks and starts to decline? Uranium mining is one of those energy intensive activities that will become less "economic" as oil extraction declines. So the oil extraction rate limits the uranium extraction just like available clean water limits population no matter how much food you have.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby joewp » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:05:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')I agree. That's why I'm asking "what will people do for a living?" I'd like to see some other people address this when they say we can "mitigate peak oil by doing away with all the useless industries." What do they propose to replace them?


Those people will become "demand destructed".

Also known as "dead" to non-economists.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:07:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')bserved declines in production are often at flat pricing, where its just cheaper to pump somewhere else than to spend money on infrastructure for enhanced recovery.


Huh? Are you saying that (for instance) the USA is not pumping as much any more because its just cheaper to import it from a hostile country halfway around the world and thats why US domestic production declined?

Yes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')Massive infrastructure growth in CTL, shale oil, oil sands, all supported by nuclear.


Right, like I said CTL etc. I wonder what the impact of all that CO2 would be on food production and climate related problems? Plants need CO2 to grow right? So we should be able to triple our food production in the next 50 years to meet the 15 Billion people that endless growth will produce. :roll:

I expect we'll be able to provide for 15 billion, sure. I dont expect that we'll have 15 billion however, because demographics dont support that growth scenario.

As for the CO2 driven climate impacts, who really knows? I'm guessing cutting all fossil fuel emitions will cost more than the (uncertain) benifits.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nless thorium reactors are perfected I don't see where you would have enough nuclear fuel to mitigate the declines in oil production much less cook up all the tar sands.
Why? We've covered this in the uranium supply thread. With once through reactors alone, we have enough recoverable uranium to last 25000 years. One might imagine that we'll get thorium breeders, cheap solar power, or fusion sometime before the fuel runs out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') agree nuclear needs to be done but I think those kind of levels would be unrealistic.
We need 20,000 1GW reactors to replace all fossil fuels, we will get the capacity. It will be easier if we do it now rather than later.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')TL and other nastiness WILL be done so the elite/military etc have enough go-juice but not so we can collectively commute 40 miles a day from suburbia.

-G
CT
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:15:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')We need 20,000 1GW reactors to replace all fossil fuels, we will get the capacity. It will be easier if we do it now rather than later.


Yeah, cuz you'll need one hell of a lot of petroleum to build 20,000 reactors.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:15:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'O')K Perhaps there won't... but ponder this.

1. growth can't continue.
(If you don't believe 1. then watch the Dr. Albert Bartlett video)

I guess we won't ever agree on this.


Are you under the impression that constant growth in a finite environment can continue indefinitely?

This is a strawman.

Growth can continue until we peak total avaliable resources, and where the disagreement comes from is what our total avaliable resources are. 1 trillion tons of uranium goes a long way.


It's not a strawman, gnm said growth can't continue and you said you don't agree on that.

What I disagree on is that growth can't continue, sure. But where will you find any claims that growth can continue forever in an infinite environment. Stop perpetuating strawman claims.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd no, growth can't continue until we "peak total available resources". It can only continue until the least available resource peaks. For example, assuming your 1 trillion tons of uranium is correct, what makes you think we'll get all that out of the ground once oil peaks and starts to decline?
Because it can all be done with nuclear energy inputs, and because after oil peaks, alternative energies will be the best game in town untill you oversupply the market.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')ranium mining is one of those energy intensive activities that will become less "economic" as oil extraction declines. So the oil extraction rate limits the uranium extraction
Nope. Uranium mining today is largely done with in-situ leeching techniques that is very energy efficient. Enrichment can be done with nuclear power plants, and is unnecissary with CANDU or MSBRs anyways.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'j')ust like available clean water limits population no matter how much food you have.
Clean water is a derivitive of energy. Just about all resources are derivitives of energy.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Dezakin » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:21:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')We need 20,000 1GW reactors to replace all fossil fuels, we will get the capacity. It will be easier if we do it now rather than later.


Yeah, cuz you'll need one hell of a lot of petroleum to build 20,000 reactors.

Doing it with fossil fuel support is cheaper, but hardly necissary.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby Niagara » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:21:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NeoPeasant', 'W')ell we're going to have to come up with a better plan than running a giant waste machine aka the economy full blast so that the maximum number of people can collect a paycheck. That strategy is going to start failing in a big way.


I agree. That's why I'm asking "what will people do for a living?" I'd like to see some other people address this when they say we can "mitigate peak oil by doing away with all the useless industries." What do they propose to replace them?


I answered that in my original post Ludi. "Useless" jobs will be replaced by numerous essential services. Services that are obsolete or not economically viable now, but will be when TSHTF.

I already outlined many examples:
-we will need carpenters and furniture makers because it will not be possible to buy dressers and endtables made in China

-gazillions of food growers to replace our edibles that are no longer being trucked in

-people to fix stuff instead of throw it out and drive to Walmart for a new one

-local bakers, millers, vintners, brewers, coopers, tailors, cobblers, shopkeepers, small engine mechanics, solar and wind technicians, etc..... Jobs that are not all that essential today because of oil and globalization.

Why is that so hard to understand?
Remember: 73.3% of statistics are made up
and the other 23.6% are wrong
User avatar
Niagara
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Thu 17 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Mt. Hubbert Scenic Lookout
Top

Re: 1st post! Question to Peakville!

Unread postby gnm » Tue 10 Oct 2006, 15:23:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'O')bserved declines in production are often at flat pricing, where its just cheaper to pump somewhere else than to spend money on infrastructure for enhanced recovery.


Huh? Are you saying that (for instance) the USA is not pumping as much any more because its just cheaper to import it from a hostile country halfway around the world and thats why US domestic production declined?


Yes.


[smilie=laughing4.gif]

By that way of thinking we are sucking oil from 12000 feet under the gulf because its cheaper than the sources on land . right?

20,000 reactors? 8O I think I'm done here....

-G
gnm
 
Top

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron