Peak Oil Questions

zoidberg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:41 am Post subject: Peak Oil Questions

Wouldnâ€™t a sudden increase in oil prices cause an economic depression, lowering oil consumption enough to re-stabilize prices?

Wouldnâ€™t a series of wars destroying capital assets lower our oil consuming ability, acting as another stabilizing force?

Couldnâ€™t these, along with securing fusion energy alternatives, provide a better way and more productive way to fuel our energy intensive civilization?

Or even in an uneven result, couldnâ€™t Western military domination secure a majority of oil deposits and shut down the rest of the world for as long as the oil held out? (Presumably giving the 25-50 years to retool everything, so the west could indefinitely hold its lead)

energyaddict · Tar Sands Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 97 Location: Germany

zoidberg wrote:

Doly · Expert Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 4034

nth · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 24, 2005 Posts: 1976

What happen to alternative fuels like bio fuels?
Ethanol, methanol, etc... will be viable when oil prices keep climbing.

Right now, we are in the $42+. The effects of this pricing is not really being felt in USA. It is being felt in China, though. So it will be interesting to see how China's economy goes in 2005. From all indications, it will still grow, but at a rather slower pace. Still I predict 1mbpd increase from Q4 '04 useage by end of '05. As for US economy, the price can go up to $64 before our economy suffers another bout.

Please keep in mind sour crude prices are way lower than sweet and US refineries are buffering our economy from the oil shock by purchasing sour crude instead of sweet. If sour crude prices goes over $42, we will feel the pain.

Ayoob_Reloaded · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 383

Creach · Coal Joined: Feb 01, 2005 Posts: 7

Doesn't shutting down the rest of the world = killing them?

I imagine after we win our horrific wars and control the oil we'll have to defend it once the rest of the world realizes they're getting shut out.

Depression, war, and suffering for billions. Why are people being so silly worrying about Peak Oil when the solution is that simple?
_________________
"I do not want my work to bring me immortality. I wish to gain my immortality through not dying."
-Woody Allen

spot5050 · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:31 pm Post subject:

FarmCat · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject: Biofuels, ethanol, etc.

nth said,

zoidberg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:16 pm Post subject:

This is what I read before I posted my message here

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This is quite an apocalyptic site. My questions were derived as answer to the rather extreme conclusions reached by the author. He depicts peak oil as the equivalent of a civilization crashing head on into a wall at a thousand miles an hour. My analogy is a civilization careening off a few walls until it loses momentum and slows down. Also keep in mind, even if peak oil is reached around 2008, even by 2050 we will still have about half of todayâ€™s oil production, still not quite the stone ages (quite a drop no doubt though). Reference: http://www.asponews.org/

To further explain myself further;
'Wouldnâ€™t a sudden increase in oil prices cause an economic depression, lowering oil consumption enough to re-stabilize prices?'
Iâ€™m not thinking a terrible depression is an antidote for peak oil, or an alternative to shoot for. It is a far as I can tell, inevitable. It will happen, and Iâ€™m asking will this work against or with the forces of peak oil. Will it accelerate or slow down the destructive effects of ever higher energy prices? It will slow it down I think weâ€™ll all agree. This is better than less savoury scenarios that outline an exponential decline (as opposed to this nice linear type of decline.) I think we all agree that without abundant energy, many, many people will die and a great many things will be lost, and I for one want to talk about it.

'Wouldnâ€™t a series of wars destroying capital assets lower our oil consuming ability, acting as another stabilizing force?'
The idea behind this statement was that a sudden rise in oil prices will tend to dampen any rampant wars among groups of nation states from raging across the globe. Indeed slowing the gears of global society would probably point attention inwards, or in some cases into civil war. War is an evitable result of peak oil, but it wouldnâ€™t be the total war of WWII. (Again in counterpoint to above websiteâ€™s assertions)

Even given relatively limited wars, they will be powerful enough to destroy an appreciable amount of capital assets(airports, roads, dams whatnot). I know its callous, and I take no delight in it. But it is I think an important factor in preventing a sudden collapse. Or if you want to consider this, a drop in energy will make a lot products unprofitable. This will also lead to an indirect destructions of assets as they are scrapped or abandoned.

But too be even more callous, a sudden rise in energy prices will make food more scarce and expensive, which will inevitably lead to famines and fewer people, again providing a break to the downward spiral of collapse. (and into the sideways slide of stagnation)

My ideas arenâ€™t about denying peak oil, or providing a way around its consequences. But too simply provide what I hope is a reasonable alternative to the collapse outlined in the above website. Not a happy one, but something we can work with. Because solutions to the problem wont be found by ignoring the effects that are unpalatable.

'Couldnâ€™t these, along with securing fusion energy alternatives, provide a better way and more productive way to fuel our energy intensive civilization?'
Here I'm thinking that if the corrosive effects of less energy can be mitigated it will give the time and resources to develop alternative energy.

â€˜Or even in an uneven result, couldnâ€™t Western military domination secure a majority of oil deposits and shut down the rest of the world for as long as the oil held out? (Presumably giving the 25-50 years to retool everything, so the west could indefinitely hold its lead)â€™

Here Iâ€™m not trying to imply that Western domination is about conquering the planet or that it has a right to do so. Its about having ultimate control over the oil, which does not necessarily mean occupying entire countries. Which as one person pointed out is not going well. Hegemonic control can be accomplished via proxy armies, political manoeuvring, shaping the geo-strategic landscape to only allow one option to an oil producing country. (How many options does Kuwait or Bahrain have anyways?) Plenty of options, and is has to be Western because the Chinese donâ€™t have the same capabilities and with cheap energy coming to an end, their window of opportunity is rapidly closing.

The idea is that if thereâ€™s not enough energy to go around, in a large perspective concentrating resources into the advanced industrial societies is the best way to find energy alternatives. The goal I think is to preserve what we have for now and set the stage for future advances. I hope everyone will be able to participate, but I fear the majority of people on this planet will not get the same level of participation.

Ayoob_Reloaded · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 383

OK, sounds like you've been doing some thinking about this. Good. It's a tough thing to wrap your brain around.

Now at the end of all these things that you are suggesting, we've had a major depression, lots of war and devastation, and we're still dealing with a declining resource base.

Now what?

BTW, we aren't going to get fusion working. And hydrogen isn't going to work either.

In the scenario you suggest, what happens next?

zoidberg · Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:38 pm Post subject: What next?

Well my hope for the future is for civilization to continue at a reduced energy level. That means a lot of reforms. Almost no more cars(still a fair amount of trains though). A lot fewer highways, air conditioners, and warplanes etc... I think we'll be surprised at what we can live comfortably without. Although I will miss universal AC Smile

.

Secondly the energy companies will invest their massive amounts of money in alternative energy. Windmills, geothermal what have you, massive space based solar collectors. Hopefully just the bare minimum of coal, although I think coal will end up supplying the bulk of our future energy needs.

I see a future of public transit, trains, rolling blackouts, energy & food quotas, oligarchic control, and most importantly a massive potential market for energy attracting every inventor in the world. Any idea that could become profitable will be pursued, by individuals as well as the largest energy corporations.

A comprehensive commitment to efficiency, with a replacement of old political parties with new ones(go Greens!). Perhaps a new mindset of ingenuity in the face of adversity will triumph over the old one of making old ideas bigger. This is my optimistic view. Unoptimistically I see a series of sudden drops in living standards accompanied brutal social realignments. A fracturing of nation states into Balkanized tribal entities, hating and envying their neighbours, accompanied by decades of decaying infrastructure, kinda like the Soviet Union, except bigger and in slower motion.

So one hand, peaceful readjustment led by the governments and corporations to protect their citizens and recognize that their interests are served by conserving themselves until new growth can being to replace the old oil based economy.

To the other hand where governments (national, corporate, whatever) lose control, and the situation deteriorates, until the situation stabilizes, it might not hit rock bottom until the world consists of few high tech city states living off the minuscule alternative energy resources available, to vast no go areas where the decaying ruins of todayâ€™s civilization house a subsidence level of civilization.

Kent · Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject: