Today we may be very nearly at that latter peak. Slightly ahead of forecast, conventional oil production started drifting lower in 2005, resulting in several years of record high prices—which led the industry to develop technology to extract tar sands and tight oil, and also incentivized the US and Brazil to begin producing large quantities of biofuels. But high petroleum prices also gradually weakened the economies of oil-dependent industrial nations, reducing their demand for liquid fuels. The resulting mismatch between growing supply and moderating demand has resulted in a temporary market glut and falling oil prices.

Crashing prices are in turn forcing the industry to cut back on drilling. As a result of idled rigs, global crude production will probably contract in the last half of 2015 through the first half of 2016. Even if prices recover as a result of falling output, production will probably not return to its recent upward trajectory, because the US tight oil boom is set to go bust around 2016 in any case. And banks, once burned in their lavish support for marginally profitable drilling projects, are unlikely to jump back into the unconventionals arena with both feet.

Ironically, just as the rate of the world’s liquid fuels production may be about to crest the curve, we’re hearing that warnings of peak oil were wrongheaded all along. The world is in the midst of a supply glut and prices are declining, tireless resource optimists remind us. Surely this disproves those pessimistic prophets of peril! However, as long-time peakist commentator Ron Patterson notes:

Within a couple of years, those of us who have spent most of the past two decades warning about the approaching peak may see vindication by data, if not by public opinion. So should we prepare to gloat? I don’t plan to. After all, the purpose of the exercise was not to score points, but to warn society. We were seeking to change the industrial system in such a way as to reduce the scale of the coming economic shock. There’s no sign we succeeded in doing that. We spent most of our efforts just battling to be heard; our actual impact on energy policy was minimal.

There’s no cause for shame in that: the deck was stacked against us. The economics profession, which has a stranglehold on government policy, steadfastly continues to insist that energy is a fully substitutable ingredient in the economy, and that resource depletion poses no limit to economic growth. Believing this to be true, policy makers have effectively had their fingers jammed in their ears.

A cynic might conclude that now is a good time for peak oil veterans to declare victory, hunker down, and watch the tragedy unfold. But for serious participants in the discussion this is where the real work commences.

During these past 17 years, as the peak oil debate roiled energy experts, climate change emerged as an issue of ecosystem survival, providing another compelling reason to reduce our reliance not just on oil, but all fossil fuels. However, the world’s response to the climate issue was roughly the same as for peak oil: denial and waffling.

Today, society is about to begin its inevitable, wrenching adaptation to having less energy and mobility, just as the impacts of fossil fuel-driven climate change are starting to hit home. How will those of us who have spent the past years in warning mode contribute to this next crucial chapter in the unfolding human drama?

Despite peakists’ inability to change government policy, our project was far from being a waste of time and effort. The world is better off today than it would have been if we had done nothing—though clearly not as much better as we would have liked. A few million people understood the message, and at least tens of thousands changed their lives and will be better prepared for what’s coming. One could say the same for climate activism.

If our main goal during the past 17 years was to alert the world about looming challenges, now it is to foster adaptation to fundamental shifts that are currently under way. The questions that need exploration now are:

We have to assume that this work will have to be undertaken in the midst of accelerating economic decay, ecological disruption, and periodic crises—far from ideal operating conditions.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that crisis could act in our favor. As their routines and expectations are disturbed, many people may be open to new explanations of their predicament and to new behaviors to help them adapt to energy and monetary poverty. Our challenge will be to frame unfolding events persuasively in ecological terms (energy, habitat, population) rather than conventional political terms (good guys, bad guys), and to offer practical solutions to the burgeoning everyday problems of survival—solutions that reduce ecological strains rather than worsening them. Our goal should not be to preserve industrial societies or middle-class lifestyles as we have known them (that’s impossible anyway), but to offer a “prosperous way down,” as Howard Odum put it, while preserving whatever cultural goods that can be salvaged and that deserve the effort.

As with our recent efforts to warn society about peak oil, there is no guarantee of success. But it’s what needs doing.

29 Comments on "Heinberg: After the Peak"

Plantagenet on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 9:53 am 



Heinberg is being dishonest. Campbell and Laherre never discussed “peak conventional oil”. Their prediction was for ALL oil production to peak by 2010

That hasn’t happened because shale oil kicked in and oil production went higher

Northwest Resident on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 9:55 am 



The “easy” answer is to scale down to local economies. Each geographically delineated area should be responsible for producing its own food to the maximum extent possible. The people living in that area should work in that area, and if they need to commute to work, that commute should be by public transportation or by bicycle or the use of one’s own legs. Production of needed products should be done within the economic zone to the maximum extent possible using resources obtained from that geographical zone — and “needed” products will of course exclude millions of plastic and electronic gizmos and widgets which have no use other than keeping garbage men employed. Each economic zone should, tot he maximum extent possible, find a way to become self-sustaining.

But there are big losers in that described scenario:

1) Financial parasites and leaches — bankers, traders and the whole class of financial speculators — who don’t make a dime unless they’re skimming off the top of international trade and loans made to enable “economic growth”

2) Sick, incapacitated, mentally ill, feeble, elderly — the whole slice of humanity that the age of oil has generated enough excess to support and sustain — but who actually have very little if any capability of contributing in a meaningful way to the economy (other than consumption)

3) Politicians and career government employees who owe their cushy positions to all the bankers and financial masters of the universe who paid their way into office and who serve their money masters first.

Shrinking down to a sustainable mode of living is going to be very painful, and there will be a lot of losers. Those who today hold the most power and wealth will have to forfeit the most, by far, before we get to where we need to be. And those who have the most power and the most wealth today are least likely to think that self-sustaining economic arrangements are any benefit at all — just like a king will find it very difficult to understand why it is better for his subjects if the kingdom is split up into self-managing geographical entities. Expect most of the wealthy and the powerful to fight to the very end against what needs to be done, and you won’t be disappointed.

Northwest Resident on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:03 am 



Plant, quick question.

Heinberg writes “In later publications, Laherrère added that the peak in conventional oil would cause prices to rise, creating the incentive to develop more unconventional petroleum resources.”

Are you asserting that Heinberg is lying in that statement or that the statement is untrue?

How is Heinberg being dishonest?

MSN Fanboy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:12 am 



•How can we help build resilience throughout society, starting locally, assuming we will have little or no access to the reins of national policy?
•How can we help society adapt to climate change while building a zero-emissions energy infrastructure?
•How can we help adapt society’s energy consumption to the quantities and qualities of energy that renewable sources will actually be able to provide?

Heinberg has the wrong goals. Maybe he cant face the ultimate reality of what the end of oil means to humans. I like his optimism but it is ill-founded.

Better sit back with your preparations and watch the end of bau consume itself fully.

Help yourself first, then help the survivors if you must, but if you try to help ‘society’ your preps will be overwhelmed.

Imagine trying to fit 100 people in a lifeboat built for 12…

Population reduction must occur first, for the good of our planet, its ecosystems and ironically for the good of the remaining humans.

I feel all giddy, this crash will be fun to watch.

GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:13 am 



Plant said:

“Heinberg is being dishonest. Campbell and Laherre never discussed “peak conventional oil”. Their prediction was for ALL oil production to peak by 2010”

As usual Plant………………..

Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years
by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère
Scientific American March 1998

“Last, economists like to point out that the world contains enormous caches of unconventional oil that can substitute for crude oil as soon as the price rises high enough to make them profitable. There is no question that the resources are ample: the Orinoco oil belt in Venezuela has been assessed to contain a staggering 1.2 trillion barrels of the sludge known as heavy oil. Tar sands and shale deposits in Canada and the former Soviet Union may contain the equivalent of more than 300 billion barrels of oil [see “Mining for Oil,” by Richard L. George, on page 84]. Theoretically, these unconventional oil reserves could quench the world’s thirst for liquid fuels as conventional oil passes its prime.’

http://www.oilcrisis.com/campbell/endofcheapoil.pdf

MSN Fanboy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:13 am 



NR, nobody will accept the easy answer lol

Much more likely to go to war.

Northwest Resident on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:22 am 



MSN — War, unfortunately, is a typical human response to competition for dwindling resources. I don’t think we can expect anything else. I do think that large scale mechanized global war is unlikely, however, for one simple reason — not enough oil!!

GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:26 am 



MSN,

Heinberg has often been accused of being a doomer. Many people stopped reading his writings because they accused him of not offering solutions to our predicaments.

Those are not his goals. They are rhetorical questions.

Plantagenet on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:40 am 



Nor-dent

Yes Campbell and Laherre were aware that unconventional oil resources existed

No they never foresaw that these could cause global oil production to continue to grow after conventional oil peaked

Get it now?

Northwest Resident on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 10:46 am 



Panter — What I get is that you’re a moron. Answer the question. How is Heinberg being dishonest?

You made the false accusation. Now, back it up with fact, or your twisted version of what you think passes for fact. Prove you aren’t a fool and a troll. Otherwise, stop posting your offensive B.S.

Plantagenet on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:11 am 



Nordent

I’ve already explained it to you. It appears the problem is on your side— you lack the intellectual firepower to understand.

Cheers!

Brent on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:28 am 



Plant the point is we are there who cares who said what. This argument has no point and is not constructive at all. Please if you have nothing constructive to say then don’t say anything.

GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:31 am 



Plant said:

“Nor-dent
Yes Campbell and Laherre were aware that unconventional oil resources existed
No they never foresaw that these could cause global oil production to continue to grow after conventional oil peaked
Get it now?”

For starters Plant, it wasn’t NWR that quoted Campbell and Laherrère.

Secondly, it is Laherrère, not Laherre.

Thirdly, if you had of actually read what I quoted from Campbell and Laherrère above:

“Theoretically, these unconventional oil reserves could quench the world’s thirst for liquid fuels as conventional oil passes its prime.”

You would realize how you are making yourself look like a complete moron.

dave thompson on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:31 am 



The plain fact remains EROEI has dropped world wide, down to 12-1 in the US by some estimates and down to 20-1 world averages. We no longer get the net energy of the past economic paradigm. We have hit the age of limits the cracks are showing.

Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:33 am 



Greg, if Heinberg is a doomer then that puts me into the far far doomish category. His message is offering IMO an overly optimistic message. It is amazing that one has to talk to people like children to not disturb their sensibilities because like Jack Nicholson said “You can’t handle the truth” sheeples! I know you and I are close in position on doom. Heinberg is too but he has an audience to get a message to.

GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:45 am 



Davy,

I’m sure that you understand as well as I do, that there is little point in trying to explain our predicament to most people. I have learned to pretty much keep my mouth shut around family and friends because I still enjoy their company, regardless of whether they can handle the truth or not. When I do try to bring points up now, I always do my best to offer some kind of hope, otherwise my message falls entirely on deaf ears.

Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 11:55 am 



Greg, I wonder at what point in the near future that the conditions are so undeniably doomish that those same people are going to look to us for advice because they know we have answers?

Marm, if you want some advice I can give you some as a caring friend. I will do this because I like you and hope to save your soul from the deadly and toxic corn porn that has infected you. Maybe I will create a blog just for massage envy type people to bookmark. I will give real time immediate answers and advice to you through this blog to help you on your journey to reality and sanity.

Northwest Resident on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 12:08 pm 



Davy — Maybe a good post-collapse business to plan for would be one where we charge people (a can of beans, a few bullets, etc…) to explain to them exactly what just happened that ruined their lives.

It would be like the Lucy psychology stand in the Peanuts comic strip, sort of.

“For a nickel, I’ll tell you why you’re now walking around in shock, and why you don’t have any food to eat. For an extra nickel, I’ll predict your future for you (hint: you are so screwed…)”.

Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 12:38 pm 



NR, yea man, profit off of misery the great American corporate way. FUN fun, well, actually you are right I am very ready to help people get started with their prepping or a doomstead. I will have to charge something but that can very as to how much personality they have. You know someone like Mak would have to pay out the butt for advice if I would even give it. HA ha. Seriously, I am the type to help my neighbors and ask them to help me somehow. Everyone has something to give.

GregT on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 12:39 pm 



Davy,

I had noticed recently that people were starting to ask me a lot more questions, but that was before the recent collapse in oil prices due to ‘the oil glut’. (sorry couldn’t help myself 🙂 ) Happy days are here again! What most appear unable to comprehend right now, is that any savings in gasoline have more than been offset by rising electricity, insurance, taxes, and food costs. I suspect that it won’t be that long before they start asking questions again.

Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 12:55 pm 



Greg, just wait until the lights don’t always go on, grocery store shelves are regularly bare, and gas pumps are taped off for lack of gas. People just don’t realize how close these events are to their locals. This may not be every local or every local at the same time but we are going to see less and that is what less means when applied to the vitals that make people nervous. People think that is something that happens in Venezuela not connecting the dots back to their local. This is really a surreal situation of denial, false confidence and hopium. IOW corn disease.

sunweb on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 12:57 pm 



We will go kicking and screaming down the path to the new Middle Ages as fossil fuels desert us. With the decline of available energy, those of most of us who have sat at the top of the energy pyramid will become the new peasants. With the popular view of the Middle Ages as a brutal and dirty time filled with famine and disease and at the mercy of armed overlords. We cringe at the thought.

With great sadness, we must recognize the direct connection between present day population levels and the use of fossil fuels in food production, medical procedures, medicines and hygiene. With the fall in fossil fuel availability there will be a reduction in population. Population soared with the industrial revolution and the development of industrial, fossil fuel based agriculture. It cannot be sustained.
From: The New Middle Ages
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-middle-ages.html

Jersey Patriot on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 1:00 pm 



Campbell and Laherrère predicted peak total oil production (not just conventional) in the 00s. Page 81 has a graph showing a peak in total production around 2004 or 2005. The graph’s caption says that the red line is conventional and unconventional together.

The article states that unconventional is difficult to ramp up and predicts total unconventional production of 700 billion barrels between 1998 and 2058. This is an average of ~32m bbls/day over the 60 years. Page 82. This strikes me as a hell of a lot of oil production, much more than we are currently enjoying.

The authors misjudged how unconventional oil production would affect the global production curve. As of now, whether 700b barrels of unconventional oil will be produced between 1998 and 2058 remains to be seen.

Perk Earl on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 3:25 pm 



1) Financial parasites and leaches — bankers, traders and the whole class of financial speculators — who don’t make a dime unless they’re skimming off the top of international trade and loans made to enable “economic growth”

Bingo, NR! So many parasites, including politically powerful people that have made a life out of skimming off the cream. They have no intention of allowing the current way of doing things, the status quo, to change appreciably. Through the central banks they will hold the rudder steady in their favor while the masses struggle.

Makati1 on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 7:40 pm 



NWR, I think you have a clear picture of the situation. I would only add that war is inevitable and it will be global. It may start in Europe or even the ME, but it will be global before it ends.

Oil is NOT needed to use the tens of thousands of missiles in the world’s arsenals. The old WW2 tanks and infantry may be history, but the alternates are even more deadly. I see the very possible use of nukes before it ends.

Can you imagine the insane leaders of the USSA losing to a Russian/Chinese enemy and NOT using nukes as a last resort? I cannot. And the USSA would/will lose for too many reasons to go into here.

Aire on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 8:31 pm 



I’m guessing Makati BillT will be correct. The military of various countries will basically “secure” whatever resources there are left after economic collapse and have pretty much complete control over. People like you and I won’t have as many freedoms or rights like we do today and even less resources at our disposal

Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 9:04 pm 



Air, we can be sure power will rule. In a shrinking BAU pie power will triage out the deadweight in a decidedly military approach. The military has a doctrine of force engagement to achieve a goal and or a campaign. That goal may be a military operation or it may be establishing order and stability. We are going to be back at the nation building game but it won’t be Iraq or Afghanistan. This nation building will be our nation being rebuilt in a post FF world once BAU deflates into limpness.

gdubya on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 2:14 am 



Msn fanboy “I feel all giddy, this crash will be fun to watch.”

At best I expect net 5 billion people die in the next century, which requires burying 140,000 people per day. At worse I expect 7 billion dead in a decade; 2 million daily.

Given that statistically this will probably include you and me I don’t think you will be watching: You will be participating. And unless you are a total sociopath in no way is any of this likely to be fun.

Davy on Tue, 3rd Feb 2015 4:57 am 



Gdub, I agree with the numbers as likely with let’s hope the low side of the century long decline. It will probably be a combination of both. Yes, I fully expect as a healthy 50’s man to have a lifespan drop of 10-20 years because of what is ahead almost certainly starting in 10 years. Statistically most of us older people here will not live as long as mommy and daddy did or are. We have a brutal life ahead but on the flip side a heroic one. If you look at WWII when so many died in such a short period of time in a smallish area you see exceptional people rise above the filth. Let’s be some of those people.