[RelfF2]

First I would like to commend everyone involved in this forum. It is by far the most mature and academic discussion I have ever seen on the internet. It’s clear that there are some very intelligent and serious people here and it’s comforting to know that good minds are working on a problem even if it is left out of the public discussion. I’ve always been worried about peak oil, even when I wasn’t sure what it was. I came across the peak oil bell curve when I watched a oil lecture on CSPAN one night a few years ago and have been reading and watching oil news fairly closely since.

On this forum I have been particularly interested in the anti-PO arguments of Lynch et al as I always want both sides of the story and have always felt that the best way to prove something true is to look at the evidence against. I am thankful for them, as I have learned more about energy economics then I ever thought I would. But in reading the anti-PO position I have become quite upset, and that’s what I want to discuss here.

Anti-PO, what exactly is your point? You’re not arguing that peak will never happen. Everyone knows oil is finite and will run out. Everyone agrees that we don’t have to run out to have serious problems – we only have to reach a point when we are unable to meet demand due to declining production. The argument seams to be centered around timing. “Yes, peak will happen, but reserve growth, technology improvement, oil sands, blah blah blah.” And? Even the most optimistic outlooks put peak at 50 or so years out.

I have not taken a firm position on the timing of peak, but I have got to tell you, a time frame of +/- 25 years makes absolutely no difference to me. 2056, 2007, I consider both “the present” and the conclusion reached is the same. Dramatic changes and unprecedented investment is needed NOW. If we have 50 years, great, that may be barely enough time, but all I hear is “don’t worry, we are not peaking now, and besides we are going to get every drop we can out of this planet before peak, so why are you worried…” This is not a strategy for the long-term future. Being a young person this is not a strategy for my life time, and sure as hell isn’t a strategy for my daughter’s. Maybe your lifetime is all you are worried about. To me this is the most outrageous expression of selfishness ever displayed in history. If now is not the time to bring this to the forefront of our collective will then when is? How long do you suggest we wait to begin remaking our entire world system? How long exactly does it take to change the very basis of our financial, economic, and social world? Do not talk to me about reserve growth, oil sands, and new drilling tactics. Long-term, do you know how a windmill will turn without grease? Do you know how an electric car will be built without plastics? Do you know how a nuclear power plant will operate without rubber seals, or how these technologies will be developed in a petroleum free world? Perhaps we begin now?

I believe that your optimism is commendable, but ultimately harmful. This entire discussion needs to be shifted away from the argument over timing to a real discussion of mitigation that is immediately required and long-term solutions. I refuse to be put in a situation where I have to look my daughter in the eyes and tell her that her world is a shit-hole because of our procrastination.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RelfF2', 'F')irst I would like to commend everyone involved in this forum. It is by far the most mature and academic discussion I have ever seen on the internet. It’s clear that there are some very intelligent and serious people here and it’s comforting to know that good minds are working on a problem even if it is left out of the public discussion...

[RelfF2]

well, that may be. this is the first post i looked at: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic4138.html and was very impressed with it. but anyways....

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'I') beg your pardon? PeakOil.com is like a frat house.

[RonMN]

Welcome! That was an impressive 1st post! And you really hit the nail on the head. You'll continue to get frustrated as months go by & still nobody is doing anything...people just don't want to hear it & an individual can't help. It will take a massive collective effort & that's just not going to happen.

You may want to check out the "planning for the future" section as to save yourself & your daughter as the world falls apart.

Glad to have you on board

[Last_Laff]

Why does everyone keep saying "Oil will run out"? it seem like a misnomer these days. Should you mean by the end of the cheap oil? Technically, we're running out of oil that are cheap.

[Laughs_Last]

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." - George W. Bush

[Laughs_Last]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Last_Laff', 'W')hy does everyone keep saying "Oil will run out"? it seem like a misnomer these days. Should you mean by the end of the cheap oil? Technically, we're running out of oil that are cheap.

[nth]

RelfF2,

1. If you want to look at historical facts, you will notice that PO advocates were always wrong.

2. Look at energy transitions from coal to oil. Peak Coal advocates did not believe oil was the solution and also did not think there is enough oil to replace coal. There was also a long list of reasons industrial society will collapse due to eminent drop of coal supplies. In reality, UK coal supplies did drop a lot, but new coal seams were discovered all over the world and oil successfully replaced most coal use after WW2.

FYI: I am not anti-PO, but I totally understand why they are anti-PO. To them, PO means something very narrow and specific. PO does NOT mean oil production will peak in the future. To them, PO means oil will peak eminently and will cause major issues- meaning the economy will not be able to adapt. This is what they believe PO means.

[RelfF2]

Thanks for the replies guys. "run out of oil" was the wrong choice of words, actually the important part was the part after that, that we don't have to run out of oil to have a serious problem. running out of oil is not the point. eventually there will be oil in the ground that we can't afford to get and we will be "out of oil"

nth, thanks for that, that's the on topic stuff I was hoping for. I think the difference with our current situation is that "the next oil" is not apparent at all. or if there is a next oil it will be oil dependent to develop and use (which is why it has to be developed now and not at or post peak.)

and thanks for this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not anti-PO, but I totally understand why they are anti-PO. To them, PO means something very narrow and specific. PO does NOT mean oil production will peak in the future. To them, PO means oil will peak eminently and will cause major issues- meaning the economy will not be able to adapt. This is what they believe PO means.

[Last_Laff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Laughs_Last', 'H')ey, what's the deal with taking a user name that is so damn near similar to mine? Should I be flattered, offended?

[nth]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RelfF2', '
')
this is exactly my point. looking at it this way shows their shortsightedness. A flaw that could have disastrous consequences.

[RelfF2]

no need to move away from oil now, at least not in that way. only the need to begin developing the technologies and systems that will replace it. if production does continue to rise its a win-win. we will have more time, and the R&D costs of the investments will be that much less.

[Nike62]

RelF2,

1) 10 or 50 years is not the same for most people: 10 years - is a my problem; 50 years - is a problem for someone else...
Moreover, if 50 years is the case, who knows what will happen till then... We could be flying within the galaxy!

2) Peak oil is not a "normal" problem, which has a "specific" solution... I mean: if you take seriously this question, you have to change the very base of your society and economy; that is to stop the religion of "growth", an therefore to curb the "invisible hand", the idol of capitalism...

Now you should understand why it is so difficult for many people to accept the reality of peak oil.

[mgibbons19]

This is a good question. For me it comes down to the limits of human konwledge. the best we can do is look at history, and look at the indicators, and project. The truth is we cannot know what the consequences of this means, or even if it will happen. We can guess though.

I may come off as anti-PO sometimes, precisely because of this point. Bloom, overshoot, dieoff, entropy, fiat currency, economic collapse, mad max, techno-greenie neoprimitive future. none of us know, 'cause none of us are (G)od.

Best you can do is make your best guess, and prep accordingly.

Myself, I got a different job so I could pay off my debts faster. I don't want my family hamstrung by debt if TSdoesHTF. I worry about my daughters as well.

Good luck.

[DigitalCubano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '.')..and that's probably not even good enough for the ASPO elites.

[azreal60]

Nth, I'm not sure I totally understand your post. Half the time your talking doomer, half the time bald faced optimist. So I'm honestly not sure how to respond except to refute your first couple points.

1. Who is King M Hubbert, and other than that, the major peak predictions are Now.

2.Peak coal people aren't exactly a comparible thing. We knew alot less then about science than we do now, and the world was alot less explored. If you compare then to what we know now, and then compare the parameters, it's quite clear that the alternatives we have to go to are not nearly as scaleable as oil was.

Just because there was one bad prediction made doesn't mean every prediction in the same vein is wrong, especially when on a somewhat smaller scale we have already seen it happen.

And for others, what's the difference from peakoil peaking and peak oil peaking eminently and the economy not adapting? I'm not sure on your vocabulary usage there, as in what you mean.

[NEOPO]

RelfF2 - Welcome and indeed an impressive post.

I want to comment on the mindset in general.

Anti PO or not there is still the mental hurdles that some need to rise above before they can completely come to terms with PO and all the ramifications as it is not PO initially but the consequences asscociated with PO that people try to reject.

Many times after a long winded "sermon" on PO given to friends or family I have been asked the first question "ok so how is this going to effect me?" and once they get my version of the answer they tend to have no more questions.
Its too scary for some.

I do not expect much truth from the NEOCON mouthpieces yet the reference to addiction has definately helped me understand all of this seemingly random behavior.

Our individual grasp of this subject - our minds ability to contain and at once analyze the data - and then we have retention.
Most of you who have attending any higher education understands the retention level expected and consistantly experienced through testing by academia.
1 year later something like 5% if yer lucky
2 years maybe 4% or 3%
5 years later less then 1% or something like that.
Sure there are the few genius types who retain immense amounts of all they learn yet for the rest of us "poof gone".

I see newly gained PO knowledge having a lifespan of days or weeks because of the intense mental pressure to expell it.

The day we "get it"........
Its like one of those "hand strength" games where you squeeze as hard as you can for a quick second to get the meter up high.
Its as if we must squeeze or at least maintain a firm grip on what we now know or we could slip into rationalization or worse... back to denial.

It goes well beyond anti PO and it concerns many more things besides oil.
I completely understand why our board sociologist Mgibbons is having so much fun here

Carlholes frathouse comment: "We shall call you - flounder"

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'n')th, you say “po advocates were always wrong”?

Your ad hominems and generalization make a lousy case for optimism. And so do your facts, The first ‘po advocate’ was M. King. Hubbert and he was absolutely right in his prediction for Texas and North America decline. He is also quite possibly correct for the world, given the time and scale and the limited geologic access he had in the 1950’s.