[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', '
')As I see it: Decrease in Available Exports = Exporting Countries depletion + Exporting Countries increase in demand

[Twilight]

Nevertheless, mix-up or not, this is an important question. It should be possible to come up with an estimate - exporting countries are relatively few and known, EIA has production figures, ASPO has real or estimated peak dates and decline rates. Then it's just a case of how high internal consumption and demand growth are going to be. It should be possible to produce a curve for that.

[SevenTen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', '
')As I see it: Decrease in Available Exports = Exporting Countries depletion + Exporting Countries increase in demand

[gg3]

I don't have a basis to comment on the production figures or the math.

However as far as geopolitical impacts are concerned, it seems to me that petroleum depletion is going to be a picnic compared to what happens when climate change gets serious.

After the Iraq fiasco there comes a "Vietnam syndrome" where at least in the US, voters will be less willing to support wars unless in defense against actual acts of military aggression. (F---ing Bush Administration has just de-fanged us for another 10 - 20 years unless a Democratic president can rebuild the military somehow despite national debt etc. etc....)

The cost of war gets compared against the cost of other alternatives. $400 billion into Iraq = opportunity cost of 300 nuclear reactors and 100,000 wind turbines. I doubt we'll make that mistake twice in a row.

Petroleum is more replaceable than water and stable temperatures for agriculture. Petroleum depletion is linear, food production can suffer enormously from one bad year. We can linearly replace petroleum up to the point where depletion affects fertilizer production. We cannot replace rain and stable temps in farming regions.

Meanwhile, overseas, dieoff will be "allowed to proceed" in Africa and other regions that are "deemed" to be "lost cases." (Don't you just love that word "deemed"? You never get to hear about who does the "deeming.")

Eventually the water & food shortages hit a place such as India which is technology-capable (and in this case nuclear-armed) to a degree as to cause major social instability. This is where we begin to see a high risk of regional wars of major international consequence. Somalia and Darfur are humanitarian disasters but India/Pakistan fighting at the border brings up the spectre of them lobbing nucs at each other.

China may suffer serious social instability as well; the signs are already present in terms of riots and suchlike that are carefully kept off the news, but about which reports leak out.

At some point the rate of petroleum depletion is such as to have impacts beyond the primary energy sector, for example fertilizer production for staple foods. That would be the point at which petroleum depletion could trigger resource grabs.

The "Nazi scenario" of massed troop invasions and instructions to rape and loot is nonsense. That's cheap doomer porn with a bad plot line, focused too heavily on direct personal barbarism (rapes and looting), rather than on strategic objectives that can be obtained via other means such as nuclear attack or conventional attacks on infrastructure (e.g. Iraq minus water supply & electricity).

Each of the three major nuclear powers (US, Russia, China) has an incentive to kill off the others in order to obtain unrestrained access to resources. A country that is up against the wall for food may decide that a nuclear war is a viable option simply because it reduces the number of mouths all'round while doing comparatively less damage to food supply.

Nuke the cities, take down the population levels, keep the rural areas intact: now your adversary is off the table as far as international resources are concerned, and has a major rebuilding task, but has a lower population level relative to its potential agricultural productivity. Thus they tend to stay at home and stay out of your way while you grab resources.

And if your adversary lobs a few back at you, that takes down your own population levels also and thus relieves pressure on your own food/water supply.

Twisted logic, that, but I could see it being discussed and possibly acted upon. And it does make sense after all, since population is the driving force behind all the rest of it and there is a serious need to get down to about 2 - 3 billion humans ASAP. And the "nuclear winter" effect from even limited nuclear exchanges could reduce global temps slightly and buy more time to deal with climate change.

You can call this scenario "nuclear war as humanitarian gesture."

Damn.

[kochevnik]

gg3 :

I think your humanitarian war is almost guaranteed in the next decade or two.

It's too logical not to be tried by someone.

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')
You can call this scenario "nuclear war as humanitarian gesture."

Damn.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'T')he "Nazi scenario" of massed troop invasions and instructions to rape and loot is nonsense. That's cheap doomer porn with a bad plot line, focused too heavily on direct personal barbarism (rapes and looting), rather than on strategic objectives that can be obtained via other means such as nuclear attack or conventional attacks on infrastructure (e.g. Iraq minus water supply & electricity).

[gg3]

No, EU, it looks like you're confusing 1930s/40s weapons with today's, and conflating strategy with tactics. And if you were trying to suggest by insinuation something like holocaust denial, have a porcupine suppository for good measure.

The future doesn't look like the past, except possibly in geological terms.

---

The specific scenario I was thinking of was China + Russia ganging up on the US to remove from the world the largest consumer of resources and divide the rest between themselves. A friend in MI says it's unlikely, and a friend from China pointed out that they have never engaged in aggressive wars of territorial conquest (Tibet etc. notwithstanding). However, once again, the incentives are compelling and the means are available.

We have a window of opportunity in the next administration to make ourselves less hated around the world and thereby reduce the probability of this happening in the next 10 - 12 years.

---

Aside from that, six feet of earth overhead reduces radiation from fallout by over 99%, which is considered sufficient for shelter purposes. Ferrocement is a highly useful material for building underground structures with arched roofs.

[The_Toecutter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he specific scenario I was thinking of was China + Russia ganging up on the US to remove from the world the largest consumer of resources and divide the rest between themselves.

[stu]

[moved from geopolitics forum]

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'N')o, EU, it looks like you're confusing 1930s/40s weapons with today's, and conflating strategy with tactics. And if you were trying to suggest by insinuation something like holocaust denial, have a porcupine suppository for good measure.

The future doesn't look like the past, except possibly in geological terms.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', ' ')Just for the sheer hell of it, let's assume the 1 mb/d annual demand growth completely ceases in 2010 as a result of economic crisis in spite of continuing growth in population...

[kochevnik]

In spite of my bad math, I still think the key here is exports. If a country produces X barrels of oil and uses X barrels of oil, they might as well not even EXIST in the modelling of oil depletion.

So we have 36 mbd of exports to share. Demand is probably pretty close to that 36 mbd figure NOW, otherwise the price would be skyrocketting.

If exports decline on some curve from depletion, then we need to model the curve of demand. Up until now, demand = imports = exports. That goes out of sync in the near future because demand is going to rise because of :

1) Population increases
2) lifestyle increases (GM's car sales in China for example)
3) Countries that were exporters will be moving towards being importers (Mexico)
4) Psychology - As the oil becomes more valuable, suppliers will begin to hold back because it will be worth so much more in the future than it is now AND as word gets around that supplies are tighter, customers for oil will try to develop methods of ensuring future supply - thereby driving prices up as more and more contracts are locked up

How can we model demand ?

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')owever, as you posit, we could have an economic implosion...

But that could also affect oil production negatively which could make the shortfall even worse.

[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'T')o be honest - I'm a little disappointed here - I've been gone since I posted this and I was kinda sorta hoping someone could show me where my math doesn't make sense.

Instead all I got was a whole lotta -'Well, it's wrong because it just has to be wrong' or 'It's wrong because I say so'

If the math isn't wrong by at least a magnitude somehow, then I feel pretty sick to my stomach, to tell you the truth.

[kochevnik]

Hey Mr. Genius - need to read the whole thread - I already found my math error.

And as for your ethnocentric comment - I LIVED and worked in China for many years. I know China very well - better than you ever will with your PC bullshit. My sister in law (in China) imports cars into the country for a living. Your average Chinese wants a car badder than anything else in the world - they will never stop buying unless the govt forces them to.

so bite me.

[Mircea]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'H')ey Mr. Genius - need to read the whole thread - I already found my math error.

And as for your ethnocentric comment - I LIVED and worked in China for many years. I know China very well - better than you ever will with your PC bullshit. My sister in law (in China) imports cars into the country for a living. Your average Chinese wants a car badder than anything else in the world - they will never stop buying unless the govt forces them to.

so bite me.

[garyp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'T')o be honest - I'm a little disappointed here - I've been gone since I posted this and I was kinda sorta hoping someone could show me where my math doesn't make sense.

[Twilight]

When looking at available export volume, it doesn't matter where oil goes once exported. The export pie is whatever it is after producer internal demand, it doesn't matter whether the buyer is the US or India, or what per capita usage happens to be. Price elasticity playing a role in the US? Like it's doing now? Yeah right. Peak oil is a singularity, once you're past the threshold, basic economic laws can get stuffed.

[kochevnik]

My math in the OP may have sucked - but it looks like others have jumped on unique characteristics of the export problem.

Kunstler

Oil Drum - Jeffrey Brown

Bunch of copycats if you ask me.