Petroleum and the future of civilization

[Doug50]

Um, supply is always able to meet demand. This is the most basic economics. As supply is reduced or demand increases, prices go up. When prices go up, people use less, matching demand with supply.

To illistrate your point:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1475748767699621706

but then what is actually happening to the the economy? Economic growth is not only killed it actually retreats…right along with energy supply.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

To illistrate your point:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1475748767699621706

but then what is actually happening to the the economy? Economic growth is not only killed it actually retreats…right along with energy supply.

Those curves aren’t accurate at all. The oil demand curve is much flatter than that. Is it even based on real data?

Switching over to new technologies should create new jobs, and avoid unemployment even if living standards go down. I’m not denying that living standards will go down, I just don’t think lower living stanards are that bad of a thing.

 

[stevegravy]

I remember those wonderful years, when our fearless hero in the Whitehouse, with his sweater on, worrying about the malaise of Americans, tried to ration gas supply and in so doing destroyed all attempts at supply and demand market corrections because of his alleged egalitarian instincts. Heaven forbid that the oil companies should make a profit while gas prices rose to $2.50 a gallon. Ah the good old days.

Fact is that if the government will get out of the way, the 6 billion folks around the world will do quite nicely on their own setting the value of a BTU and how best to get it into the hands of the people that want it; more or less. The bureaucrats can accomplish nothing but stymie and regulate getting in the way of the people that want to get things done. But again that is their job. Regardless of your ER or EI people wanting a BTU will pay for it, at about the amount that they want it. Whether it is liquid, elcto-magnetic if there is a profit tro be made someone will try to make it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What else happend? Stagflation. As oil prices went up while supplies stagnated the economy went into resession while the cost of goods went up weekly. The price for canned goods at the grocery were increased weekly. … Once ER = EI there is not only no point in (in the case of oil) drilling for more oil but your economy can’t grow no matter what …

**When he broke open the third seal, I heard the third living creature cry out, “Come forward.” I looked, and there was a black horse, 5 and its rider held a scale in his hand.
6
I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures. It said, “A ration of wheat costs a day’s pay, 6 and three rations of barley cost a day’s pay. But do not damage the olive oil or the wine.” **

 

[Mr.Bee]

Um, supply is always able to meet demand. This is the most basic economics. As supply is reduced or demand increases, prices go up. When prices go up, people use less, matching demand with supply.
:

Whew! Thanks, that’s a relief.

 

[edwest2]

Exxon Mobil made its biggest profits ever in 2006 and sees oil as providing the majority of fuel through the year 2100.

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[Ridgerunner]

Jimmy Carter was the only president we’ve had who saw the reality we’re now facing. If only we’d listened to him instead of that !#$%*&! Reagan we might not now be staring right now down the barrel of the end of affordable oil. But I don’t belong to either party.

But should one really listen to someone who puts on his sweater 30 (+?) years before he actually needed it? I don’t recall freezing in the dark after deregulation under Reagan. So at least I had 30 warm, well-lit years and do believe I’m likely to have quite a few more. If government would get out of the way, I have little doubt my grandchildren will also be able to get warm and have light.

 

[drpmjhess]

But should one really listen to someone who puts on his sweater 30 (+?) years before he actually needed it? I don’t recall freezing in the dark after deregulation under Reagan. So at least I had 30 warm, well-lit years and do believe I’m likely to have quite a few more. If government would get out of the way, I have little doubt my grandchildren will also be able to get warm and have light.

Not likely, unless your grandchildren live in warm climes. When natural gas runs low in the next generation, the reliability of power generation will be at risk. As James Kunstler points out, a 36 hour electricity blackout or gas shortage in Chicago in the middle of winter would burst every pipe in a multi-story condominium highrise, rendering every unit useless as water saturates the tower. Hundreds of families could be rendered homeless in midwinter. We take a steady power supply too much for granted, because that’s all we’ve known during this brief window of fossil fuel plenty.

One thing that is quite likely is that we’ll see large-scale migrations in the US. Huge swaths of the upper Midwest will be essentially uninhabitable for much of the winter without heating affordable heating oil; much of the Southwest will be unlivable without air conditioning when it’s 120 degrees days on end. Where I live we could survive the winter without heat, but this doesn’t make me feel secure. I expect tens of millions of people will flock to temperate zones, and they will want property and housing.

In short, while the future is unknown, it seems to me folly not to prepare for it by embarking on the steps to engineer a “soft landing” in the post oil era.

Doug50, are you optimistic we can engineer a soft landing?

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

but then what is actually happening to the the economy? Economic growth is not only killed it actually retreats…right along with energy supply.

Doug50,it should also be noted that a simple market model doesn’t work in a complex situation like this, with variables that are not always market driven. When the demand for fuel causes its cost to rise, demand won’t go down because people don’t need to drive, but because they can’t afford to.

What happens when we have a huge inventory of housing in suburbs not served by rail? Kunstler warns in The Long Emergency of rapid and cruel devaluation of property in outlying areas. People will watch their equity evaporate; they won’t be able to continue living in the suburbs, but neither will they want to sell their houses when they find they’re worth a fraction of what they paid for them.

That’s where the real worry of social unrest comes in. I’ve warned my family who live in suburbia to move closer to light rail before everyone else realizes the importance of doing so. Those near public transportation will likely see their house values increase relative those in outlying areas. I can imagine the rancor.

 

[Doug50]

Doug50, are you optimistic we can engineer a soft landing?

Petrus

Not based upon what I read in these replies if that’s anything typical of the US opinion. There’s not going to be a collective wake up and because it takes the economy so long to adjust that means an economic depression is a real possibility. The american population is more interested in the lives of pop icons or the next American Idol.

Every president since Nixon has talked about energy indipendence and reducing our use of foreign oil. But since the 70’s our (and the rest of the world for that matter)…our petroleum usage has increased and the % of imports have grown to 2/3’s of our total use.

Al, complains that government needs to stay out, and I largely agree with him, but that doesn’t mean government and government leaders have no roll to play. The US government gave us NASA and JFK gave us the goal to putting a man on the moon before 1970. Mittigating the eventiual oil depletion has been liken to the needs of something greater than a Manhattan Project. Cities should be debating the what-if’s for their zoning plans.

Simmons is no government offical, Al should like that much. What he is is an independent business man heavily envolved in the petroleum industry. Here’ a lecture he gave at UCSB: Peak Oil: Implications and Options

Environmentalist like to look to Cuba as an example of sustainable living after the USSR folded causing Cuba to loose most of its oil imports
Peak oil preview: North Korea & Cuba but what you don’t read in these article is that the average Cuban lost 25 pounds (and a number lost eyesight do to malnutrition) or how a lot of them ended up in Florida or drowned trying to get there.

 

[edwest2]

The American media is feeding the people, not news but press releases. The average person has no control over new technologies, only major corporations and the government.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Al_Masetti]

According to “the radio”, there is yet another gignormous new Brazilian oil discovery.

Like … they’re finding a new oil field every month.

Kowa-bonga!

So, … what does that tell us about how smart we are and how much we know about what’s going on “down there” in the “oil-strata land”???

 

[drpmjhess]

According to “the radio”, there is yet another gignormous new Brazilian oil discovery. Like … they’re finding a new oil field every month. Kowa-bonga! So, … what does that tell us about how smart we are and how much we know about what’s going on “down there” in the “oil-strata land”???

If true – and I leave that to Doug50 to comment on – it means that we have a grace period during which to reconstruct our society along smaller, more locally and organically based lines. Sadly, the average person would read such news and exclaim: “Great! time to go out and buy another Hummer”; time to buy that McMansion in suburbia with a 40 mile commute.

If we do have grace periods brought about by new discoveries of fossil fuels, the point should be to use them to buy time for the future. It’s a certainty that fossil fuels will eventually give out, as it takes millions of years for them to form anew. Human society has been around for 5,000 years, and we’ve used up half the oil in 150 years. Continuing this torrid pace of burning a precious resource is not a recipe for longevity.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If true – and I leave that to Doug50 to comment on – it means that we have a grace period during which to reconstruct our society along smaller, more locally and organically based lines. Sadly, the average person would read such news and exclaim: “Great! time to go out and buy another Hummer”; time to buy that McMansion in suburbia with a 40 mile commute.

If we do have grace periods brought about by new discoveries of fossil fuels, the point should be to use them to buy time for the future. It’s a certainty that fossil fuels will eventually give out, as it takes millions of years for them to form anew. Human society has been around for 5,000 years, and we’ve used up half the oil in 150 years. Continuing this torrid pace of burning a precious resource is not a recipe for longevity.

I wouldn’t assume that suburbia will be the worst place to be once things start going downhill. Sure, if you have a job in the city it will be hard to get to it without fuel for your car. But how long will anyone still have a job? The economy will disappear, and at least the suburbanites will be able to turn their big lawns into gardens. They’ll be able to grow enough food to survive for a while, as the city people start killing each other for food.

 

[drpmjhess]

I wouldn’t assume that suburbia will be the worst place to be once things start going downhill. Sure, if you have a job in the city it will be hard to get to it without fuel for your car. But how long will anyone still have a job? The economy will disappear, and at least the suburbanites will be able to turn their big lawns into gardens. They’ll be able to grow enough food to survive for a while, as the city people start killing each other for food.

I agree – the inner city is not my choice of place to be. We settled in a medium sized town, served by light and heavy rail. Not the best climate, but survivable in winter without heat and in the summer without air conditioning. And we can grow winter gardens.

But I know people who left their nice rural spot because on the same road are several families armed to the teeth and brewing meth in trailer labs. The felt it would safer to be in an urban setting where cooperation with neighbors would at least be possible.

 

[Al_Masetti]

People in Cuba get “care packages” from outside.

People in North Korea die.

Not based upon what I read in these replies if that’s anything typical of the US opinion. There’s not going to be a collective wake up and because it takes the economy so long to adjust that means an economic depression is a real possibility. The american population is more interested in the lives of pop icons or the next American Idol.

Every president since Nixon has talked about energy indipendence and reducing our use of foreign oil. But since the 70’s our (and the rest of the world for that matter)…our petroleum usage has increased and the % of imports have grown to 2/3’s of our total use.

Al, complains that government needs to stay out, and I largely agree with him, but that doesn’t mean government and government leaders have no roll to play. The US government gave us NASA and JFK gave us the goal to putting a man on the moon before 1970. Mittigating the eventiual oil depletion has been liken to the needs of something greater than a Manhattan Project. Cities should be debating the what-if’s for their zoning plans.

Simmons is no government offical, Al should like that much. What he is is an independent business man heavily envolved in the petroleum industry. Here’ a lecture he gave at UCSB: Peak Oil: Implications and Options

Environmentalist like to look to Cuba as an example of sustainable living after the USSR folded causing Cuba to loose most of its oil imports
Peak oil preview: North Korea & Cuba but what you don’t read in these article is that the average Cuban lost 25 pounds (and a number lost eyesight do to malnutrition) or how a lot of them ended up in Florida or drowned trying to get there.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Your measured and underwhelmed response to the gignormous recent petroleum discoveries by Brazil is … frankly … disappointing.

I would have expected something like, “Whoa! Let’s check this out! Whoa! Bigger than two Saudi Arabias!!”

Instead, what I’m hearing is that “now we have more time to adopt the one-child-per-family-plan [with forced abortions], reduce our population [My God! How are you planning to do THAT!!! ] and force all our people into linear concentration camps along railroad rights of way and get our people used to starvation diets.”

We have hundreds of years of coal available. We have potentially nearly a thousand years of geopressurized methane available. [We have so much methane that it freely bubbles to the surface in the ocean.] We have an unlimited supply of nuclear energy.

AND we have human ingenuity with inspiration provided by God to invent new technology.

Instead, all I’m hearing is 1) all is woe and gloom and doom; and 2) let’s pass more laws and administrative rules that prevent us from developing those natural resources that we already know about.

If true – and I leave that to Doug50 to comment on – it means that we have a grace period during which to reconstruct our society along smaller, more locally and organically based lines. Sadly, the average person would read such news and exclaim: “Great! time to go out and buy another Hummer”; time to buy that McMansion in suburbia with a 40 mile commute.

If we do have grace periods brought about by new discoveries of fossil fuels, the point should be to use them to buy time for the future. It’s a certainty that fossil fuels will eventually give out, as it takes millions of years for them to form anew. Human society has been around for 5,000 years, and we’ve used up half the oil in 150 years. Continuing this torrid pace of burning a precious resource is not a recipe for longevity.

 

[drpmjhess]

Instead, what I’m hearing is that “now we have more time to adopt the one-child-per-family-plan [with forced abortions], reduce our population [My God! How are you planning to do THAT!!! ] and force all our people into linear concentration camps along railroad rights of way and get our people used to starvation diets.”

I never said any of those things. What drug are you smoking, Al?

 

[Al_Masetti]

“voluntary population limitation” … “cities rebuilt so that people can live close to their places of work” … “bicycle paths and sidewalks” … “massive effort to reduce the consumption of oil” …“public transportation …”

“and yet we may still hear calls for large families.”

These statements add up to what I said … that massive coercive governments carrying out these policies would be needed to achieve the dismal picture being painted.

These non-alternatives … these mandatory changes to our society … have been described in post after post. AND they must be done quickly.

AND not one mention of the possibility of improving the availability of energy. Not one.

All gloom and doom.

Sorry, but you have been consistent.

AND with a high level of urgency … because in the dark scenario, we would run out of energy in the very near future and may already have reached peak oil AND there is nothing we can do about it because anything we do would be too little and too late.

You’ve been consistent.

Doug50;3050712:

What is clearly needed is a massive effort to reduce the consumption of oil. To do so requires a re-examination of our modes of life and commerce. Transport of goods by trains easily wins over air cargo and long-haul trucking in energy efficiency. Public transportation needs to be improved and cities rebuilt so that people can live close to their places of work. Bicycle paths and sidewalks should be built to give people a choice, which by and large is lacking today. Policies that favor public transportation would also reverse the urban sprawl that plagues industrial nations.

Therefore the children born today will need to get by in 2050 with the same oil production as was available to us in 1960, but for each of them there might be four others vying for the same oil. Life will be difficult for the next generation, for nature again will exert her brutal will and cleanse man from the hubris of recent times.
Seppo Korpela./QUOTE]

The surging human population will be trimmed either by humans voluntarily limiting their fertility, or by famine and resource wars. I would certainly choose the former as the morally preferable option. And yet we still hear calls for large families: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_24_122/ai_n15966649

 

[Al_Masetti]

These events are highly alarmist … and THEY are not happening, either.

Yes, sea levels are rising incrementally, and while you personally may not live to see the worst of the effects on New York, New Orleans, London, Bangladesh, and Venice, your grandchilren will.

Greenland is melting fast, with meltwater now penetrating through crevasses to the bottom of the ice sheet, making it slide faster. Sled dogs are now idle in North Greenland because the sea ice is too thin for them to travel on. Global waring is reality.

Yes, God’s planetary creation is marvelous. Let’s not screw it up even further than we already have.