Oil, having peaked...

This type of hysteria was common during the 1970's. The experts told us that we had only 10 years of natural gas supply left. If you said anything else, you were a fool with your head in the sand.

Didn't turn out that way did it?

The neo-Malthusians always say: "It's different this time." I really doubt it.

This is the same study I mentioned in the Going Ungently thread. If you've been following James Howard Kunstler at all then this report shouldn't be a surprise. Kunstler and Matt Simmons spoke at SMU about this very thing a couple of years ago.

Peak oil is simple - one day in time we pump more oil out of the ground than any other day past or future. That's the the technical definition. The thing that most confues most people in PO discussions is the geo-politics. If we are indeed at peak global production now, as many geologists and investors believe, then any number of scenarios can emerge that can make the descent down from peak oil production gradual and smooth, or bumpy and chaotic.

The neocons understand that for now, the US economy will falter without cheap oil and willing foreign lenders keeping it afloat. This is why Cheney will not release the documents from his energy task force meetings, and why we are in Iraq now. Alan Greenspan say in his new book that Iraq is about oil.

The neocons have opted for what Wendell Berry described as a "global economic system of unlimited 'free trade' among corporations...held together by long and highly vulnerable lines of communication and supply protected by a hugely expensive police force that will be worldwide..."

Without this 'hugely expensive police force' which we now know is comprised of both volunteers and mercenaries, the worlds largest reserves of oil could be under Iranian control. The neocons would rather fight for control of oil than try to conserve our way out of war.

SiliconValleySteve,

This type of hysteria was common during the 1970's. The experts told us that we had only 10 years of natural gas supply left. If you said anything else, you were a fool with your head in the sand.

No "expert" said anything like this. Peak oil in the US production was carefully calculated, and it was guessed to great accuracy decades ahead of time. Now it's the world's turn.

The neo-Malthusians always say: "It's different this time." I really doubt it.

Peak oil is not Malthusian. We won't "run out" of oil; it is going to just get so expensive as all the easy stuff runs dry. Note we haven't had a single super-giant discovery since 1960. All the easy, large pools of oil have been found. We are picking up the scraps and expensive stuff now.

Article is sloppy, as is the study. Both probably are not neutral.

If oil production declines 7%/year, production will halved in about 10 year, not 23.

Study assumes that there will be no breakthrough discoveries in shale oil recovery technologies. Shale oil break even point is at $40/b.

Currently the common commute in the West consists of a 2500lb car carring a single 200lb passenger. Progress in material science and better designs could reduce car weight to 1000lb or 500lb without loss of safety. Doubling or better average mileage of passenger cars will be a big reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

Currently too many people travel to their offices unnecessarily. With better communications and changing attitudes many more people could telecommute.

Currently too many low value but bulky goods travel across Pacific from China, India and Vietnam to the US.
I've never could understand how it makes sense to drag accross the ocean a big planter and sell it for $5 at WallMart.
There is no reason that thing cannot be made in Mexico or by machines in the US with nice savings in transportation cost.

Fusion Power remained just beyond the horizon for the last 50 years, it is possible that in the next 20 years a technology will be invented that generates power cost-competitively with other sources.
It was suggested that with fusion power we may generate 1000 times more energy than we do today (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power).

Bio-sciences may invent plants that will condense orders of magnitude more energy per volume and so will be much better input for generating oil-like fossil fuel.

Harvesting sun energy via geneticly modified sea weeds might be feasible in the next 20 years.

Bottom of oceans are not really explored for fossil fuels. Since 70% of Earth are oceans, it got to be feasible to find quite a bit.

mlk's list reminds me of all those wonder weapons in which the Nazi faithful placed their hopes when the allies were closing in. We don't have 20...10 years ... Putin, Iran, Venezuela can make us go cold turkey next week, if they choose to. And then you'd see what a war for oil really looks like.

Putin, Iran, Venezuela can make us go cold turkey next week

No, they can't. Oil is a liquid market that you can't control who-gets-what once you sell it. IOW, if you sell it to anybody, you sell it to all. Even OPEC, all the top producers acting together, has a hard time controlling total flow.

The only country that has enough of it to make us suffer would be Saudi, and even they couldn't make us cold turkey if they shut down, it would just raise the price.

Also, Saudi could never stop selling oil - their people are so used to the money they need it. No pol could get away with holding back too much product.

The study itself is available at www.energywatchgroup.org

As I suspected, geology played no role in putting it together. From the report:

"The analysis in this paper does not primarily rely on reserve data which are difficult to assess and to verify and in the past frequently have turned out to be unreliable...."

Instead, the report's conclusions are extrapolated mainly from historical production data. And this, of course:

"The projections are based also on the observations of industry behavior and on 'soft' indicators (for instance, the recent turnabout in the communication of the IEA and a remarkable quote by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia."

And since we're in a science-free zone anyway, the report's authors arbitrarily announce that world petroleum reserves are probably only about two thirds of what national governments and the oil industry estimate. Why? Well, in the best tradition of public policy advocacy groups: If the facts don't fit the desired conclusions, just change the facts.

"The neocons are even starting to admit that Iraq is about oil. Prices are hitting new highs every day."

I don't understand. Neo-conmen invaded Iraq to raise oil prices? You mean Bushhitlerhalliburton were looking for ways to triple oil prices and invaded Iraq?

Fascinating.

"Neocons understand that global oil production has peaked or is near peak"

References?

"if Iran dominated the Persian Gulf, traded oil in Euros only"
How that drastically impacts US economy?
Is Japan in deep hole because oil is traded in $?

Neocons understand that global oil production has peaked or is near peak, as the study indicates. They also understand the US oil production peaked in the 1970's and that we require more oil per capita to remain econmically viable than other country on earth. The Middle East - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E, and Kuwait posess the world's largest remaining oil reserves. Our invasion and permanent police occuption of Iraq is the neocons' strategy to keep relatively cheap oil flowing out of the region, not only to the US, but to our strategic allies, major trading partners and creditors.

LOL! You actually believe this nonsense?!?