[XOVERX]

Nicholas C. Arguimbau has posted a compelling article entitled "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: Be Afraid." http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm

Arguinbau's article is based on recently released data, and one graph in particular, that comprises the Department of Energy's conclusions from 2009. Those DOE conclusions have been adopted by the U.S. military's United States Joint Forces Command since 2009.

The essential conclusion of the DOE in the Spring of 2009 is that demand will begin to outstrip supply in 2012. Furthermore, demand is expected to exceed supply by some 10 million barrels per day by 2017. Oil production will plummet from presently existing conventional sources from its present 81 mbpd to 30 mbpd by 2030 — a 63% drop in a 20-year period (or a decline of about 4% per year). The DOE conclusions confirm those set forth twelve years ago by geologists Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere in "The End of Cheap Oil", Scientific American, March, 1998.

According to Arguinbau's interpretation of the 2009 DOE data, the Olduvai Cliff looms ahead — there at the end of 2011, or the beginning of 2012 — creating havoc for civilization in the near future:

The world was completely transformed by oil for the duration of the twentieth century, but if the [2009 DOE] graph is right, within 20 years it will be virtually gone but our dependence upon it will not. Instead, we have

> Zero time to plan how to replace cars in our lives.

> Zero time to plan how to manufacture and install millions of furnaces to replace home oil furnaces, and zero time to produce the infrastructure necessary to carry out that task.

> Zero time to retool suburbia so it can function without gasoline.

> Zero time to plan for replacement of the largest military establishment in history, almost completely dependent upon oil.

> Zero time to plan to support nine billion peolple without the "green revolution," a creation of the age of oil.

> Zero time to plan to replace oil as an essential fuel in electricity production.

> Zero time to plan for preserving millions of miles of roads without asphalt.

> Zero time to plan for the replacement of oil in its essential role in EVERY industry.

> Zero time to plan for replacement of oil in its exclusive role of transporting people, agricultural produce, manufactured goods. In a world without oil that appears only twenty years away, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting US grain to other countries, there will be no oil-burning airlines linking the world's major cities, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting Chinese manufactured goods to the billions now dependent on them.

> Zero time to plan for the survival of the billions of new people expected by 2050 in the aftermath of ":peak everything."

> Zero capital, because of failing banks ans public and private debt, to address these issues.

So how did the world get into this predicament? It boils down to money. Greed. The basest of human emotions — selfishness. Big Oil, both corporations and sovereigns, didn't want to hurt their bottom lines:

Matt Simmons, the banker who has spent his post-Harvard-Business School career advising oil companies and serving as peak oil adviser to the last Presidential administration and specifically to President Bush, ought to know. And what he says is that Western oil companies like ExxonMobil would be strongly opposed to the idea of transparent data because it would reveal “how crappy and old their fields really are.” Energy TechStocks.com, "Meeting the Challenge Matt Simmons: Force All Oil Producers to Give Transparent Data," According to EnergyStocks.com, Simmons has warned that "the failure of Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers to provide transparent production data has left the world in a lurch, unable to know whether it can maintain an adequate supply of oil in the face of burgeoning demand Such uncertainty has led to indecision about whether the world should invest the huge sums of money necessary to develop alternative transportation fuel sources."

Arguinbau concludes that "[w]e are on our own." The days of reckoning soon approach.

Interesting article. Here's the link again: http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm.

I invite someone downthread to post the graph.

[Ludi]

Arguinbau concludes that "[w]e are on our own."

That's my conclusion as well. I know some folks hold out hope for hope from "the government" but I see it unlikely. Saw an article about the increasing violence in Chicago, and the response was to send in more police or even national guard, rather than providing meaningful work for people in the form of, for instance, community gardens. So the "help" I expect we'll get will be in the form of (more of) a police state.

[mos6507]

rather than providing meaningful work for people in the form of, for instance, community gardens.

In theory, I'm all for that, but can community gardens really provide a living wage?

[shortonsense]

Nicholas C. Arguimbau has posted a compelling article entitled "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: Be Afraid." http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm

I invite someone downthread to post the graph.

Yeah, we already have a thread on this I believe, and I have been making fun of it based on it being not much but yet another recycling of the same failed projection method.

[davep]

Nicholas C. Arguimbau has posted a compelling article entitled "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: Be Afraid." http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm

I invite someone downthread to post the graph.

Yeah, we already have a thread on this I believe, and I have been making fun of it based on it being not much but yet another recycling of the same failed projection method.

To be fair, we've never had such a spate of warnings about supply decreasing relative to demand as we've had this year. And they're not from your usual suspects. And they all seem to point to roughly two to three years from now.

[Ludi]

rather than providing meaningful work for people in the form of, for instance, community gardens.

In theory, I'm all for that, but can community gardens really provide a living wage?

Probably not, but they can help support people and give them something to do instead of shooting each other. Communities might have to work out how to support each other without a "living wage." A job with a "living wage" might be a thing of the past.

[Kristen]

I think human nature causes resource depletion. When everything seems so abundant, how to you get people to understand?

[shortonsense]

Nicholas C. Arguimbau has posted a compelling article entitled "The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: Be Afraid." http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm

I invite someone downthread to post the graph.

Yeah, we already have a thread on this I believe, and I have been making fun of it based on it being not much but yet another recycling of the same failed projection method.

To be fair, we've never had such a spate of warnings about supply decreasing relative to demand as we've had this year.

I would disagree of course. The DOE was created during just such a national "crisis" to talk about it, and the President spent quite a bit of time talking about the shortages, "running out", spending money on the oil shales, rationing and such.

I still think the most recent prognostications still haven't reached the 2005 level.

And they're not from your usual suspects. And they all seem to point to roughly two to three years from now.

Well, it depends on where you do most of your reading I suppose. And I would venture that the effects are ALWAYS 2 or 3 years from now, that very effect provides me with plenty of interesting historical information from 2005 to make fun of now, years after it was supposed to have happened.

[shortonsense]

I think human nature causes resource depletion. When everything seems so abundant, how to you get people to understand?

By changing the price to a level which causes behavioral change.

I have said in the past, and I still maintain, that when the solution to a problem is as easy as getting people to change their behavior, then the problem isn't near the problem you thnk it is.

Take expensive oil....want to crash the price globally? Convince the drivers in a single country, like say America, with the same cars they have sitting in the driveway right now, to drive 50% than they do now. The surplus crude this creates on the world market will absolutely shatter the price for a period of time, at least until OPEC can institute a little discipline which, if 1986 was any indication, might take a year or three.

Now, this isn't any solution to peak oil, but the concept to "solve" peak oil is the same. Allow price to do its job...which is to reflect scarcity of a thing. Price edges up, people use less, price goes up, people use less, continue for 50 years and presto, the world is running on 30 million barrels a day instead of 85 and nobody so much as missed their Facebook updates.

[Ludi]

I think human nature causes resource depletion. When everything seems so abundant, how to you get people to understand?

Well, no, there's evidence it isn't "human nature," since some humans have been able to recognize they were depleting their resources and change their behavior. It is the nature of our particular culture, though, a kind of human culture of course, but not a typical example (most human cultures over time have not been like ours).

Since there are examples of human cultures which have recognized their behavior was not helpful and were able to change, it is possible our culture might change. Knowing this gives me some hope.


Examples include the Maya and the inhabitants of the island of Tikopia prior to contact with Europeans. There are probably more examples (see the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond) but I can't think of them right now... )

[Revi]

We could definitely use half the fossil fuel we now consume here in the US, but do you see anyone doing it? We are, but we're considered wierdos around here. Most people are getting a larger truck. It's getting later and later, but without anyone around them doing anything people don't get the signal to reduce their energy consumption.

I think we'll use the resource at around 20 million barrels per day right up until we hit the oil crisis.

2012 seems like it may be a bad year.

[shortonsense]

We could definitely use half the fossil fuel we now consume here in the US, but do you see anyone doing it?

Why should we? The price incentive isn't there....crude is cheaper now than it was for periods of time in the 70's.

We are, but we're considered wierdos around here. Most people are getting a larger truck. It's getting later and later, but without anyone around them doing anything people don't get the signal to reduce their energy consumption.

Crank the price up to $4/gal for the entire country again, and people will buy fewer trucks. I promise. Crank it to $6/gal, and they will park the ones they already own and find other ways to get to work.

I think we'll use the resource at around 20 million barrels per day right up until we hit the oil crisis.

2012 seems like it may be a bad year.

Maybe. Might be as bad as 1973. 1979? 2008? I hope the price skyrockets to $6/gal the day before the Chevy Volt goes on sale to the general public, now THAT would be PERFECT.

[AirlinePilot]

I hope the price skyrockets to $6/gal the day before the Chevy Volt goes on sale to the general public, now THAT would be PERFECT.

The difference this time is that that 6$/gal ramp job will continue. Each time we spike it gets more drastic and the spikes come quicker. That KILLS the economy, unlike the long term issues which always resolved themselves with GROWING oil production in the past.

6$/gal makes the paradigm of change almost impossible for everyone but the few rich to go out and buy that new Chevy Volt. The majority wont b able to afford the costs, which will increase in the face of those 6$/gal fuel prices.

I find it interesting that you dont see the difference short. Its game changing and with a finite resource once we admit and actually see long term decline it will be painfully evident even to folks like you who think we magically continue peaking happily forever.

Without some form of rapid and cheap replacement of oil none of that "change" you so desperately hold on to is going to happen.

[gollum]

I hope the price skyrockets to $6/gal the day before the Chevy Volt goes on sale to the general public, now THAT would be PERFECT.

The difference this time is that that 6$/gal ramp job will continue. Each time we spike it gets more drastic and the spikes come quicker. That KILLS the economy, unlike the long term issues which always resolved themselves with GROWING oil production in the past.

6$/gal makes the paradigm of change almost impossible for everyone but the few rich to go out and buy that new Chevy Volt. The majority wont b able to afford the costs, which will increase in the face of those 6$/gal fuel prices.

I find it interesting that you dont see the difference short. Its game changing and with a finite resource once we admit and actually see long term decline it will be painfully evident even to folks like you who think we magically continue peaking happily forever.

Without some form of rapid and cheap replacement of oil none of that "change" you so desperately hold on to is going to happen.

I think you are underestimating the amount of social adjustment possible. There's a lot of slack that can be taken up by things like car pooling, 4 day work weeks, we may even see those who commute "camping" near work between shifts. In the end I believe you're right, the system falls apart, but I suspect it will be a lot slower than many suspect. The current system has a lot of momentum, and interest in keeping it going. As an example I drive a full size truck, but last winter went from a 5 day work week to a 4 day work week, that is the same as a 20% improvement in gas mileage. It is conceivable that at some point I would ask management to be allowed to sleep on site between my 12 hour shifts, saving another 25-50% in fuel. Not trying to be argumentative because in the end the system will collapse, but there's more resilience than many imagine.

[gollum]

I hope the price skyrockets to $6/gal the day before the Chevy Volt goes on sale to the general public, now THAT would be PERFECT.

The difference this time is that that 6$/gal ramp job will continue. Each time we spike it gets more drastic and the spikes come quicker. That KILLS the economy, unlike the long term issues which always resolved themselves with GROWING oil production in the past.

6$/gal makes the paradigm of change almost impossible for everyone but the few rich to go out and buy that new Chevy Volt. The majority wont b able to afford the costs, which will increase in the face of those 6$/gal fuel prices.

I find it interesting that you dont see the difference short. Its game changing and with a finite resource once we admit and actually see long term decline it will be painfully evident even to folks like you who think we magically continue peaking happily forever.

Without some form of rapid and cheap replacement of oil none of that "change" you so desperately hold on to is going to happen.

I think you are underestimating the amount of social adjustment possible. There's a lot of slack that can be taken up by things like car pooling, 4 day work weeks, we may even see those who commute "camping" near work between shifts. In the end I believe you're right, the system falls apart, but I suspect it will be a lot slower than many believe. The current system has a lot of momentum, and interest in keeping it going. As an example I drive a full size truck, but last winter went from a 5 day work week to a 4 day work week, that is the same as a 20% improvement in gas mileage. It is conceivable that at some point I would ask management to be allowed to sleep on site between my 12 hour shifts, saving another 25-50% in fuel. Not trying to be argumentative because in the end the system will collapse, but there's more resilience than many imagine.

[shortonsense]

I hope the price skyrockets to $6/gal the day before the Chevy Volt goes on sale to the general public, now THAT would be PERFECT.

The difference this time is that that 6$/gal ramp job will continue.

Thats what they said peak oil was going to cause. And look how poorly THAT went. Unidirectional assumptions on price simply don't work. Not when peak happened, and certainly not any better now.

Each time we spike it gets more drastic and the spikes come quicker. That KILLS the economy, unlike the long term issues which always resolved themselves with GROWING oil production in the past.

Well, I don't know if you have noticed, but as of late, the economy hasn't been getting killed. And yes, while it makes some things more expensive, it also sows the seeds of the demand destruction which are far stronger than natural field declines. Which is a good thing I might add.

6$/gal makes the paradigm of change almost impossible for everyone but the few rich to go out and buy that new Chevy Volt. The majority wont b able to afford the costs, which will increase in the face of those 6$/gal fuel prices.

Monte often tried to make that argument, that expensive gasoline would make people just want to curl up in a ball and die...rather than change type of auto, take public transport, move closer to work, etc etc. "The majority won't be able to afford"....PLEASE!! Of COURSE they will be able to afford....and they'll do it by shifting discretionary income to cover the increased costs at the same time they work to minimize those costs. Some will buy the Volt, certainly I would consider one. Some will simply drive less. Some, like Monte I might add, will discover the wonders of scooters.

I find it interesting that you dont see the difference short. Its game changing and with a finite resource once we admit and actually see long term decline it will be painfully evident even to folks like you who think we magically continue peaking happily forever.

What I think is that with the advent of transport such as the Leaf and the Volt ( and someday the Clarity ), the cost of gasoline will be mostly irrelevant. Strikes me as self evident, and has nothing to do with magic.

Without some form of rapid and cheap replacement of oil none of that "change" you so desperately hold on to is going to happen.

Please, lets not pretend, shall we?

A) Oil has been trending more expensive since 1970, so cheap ain't got nothing to do with any of this.
B) "Rapid and cheap", whats THAT mean? Rapid, like, we prototyped the relevant technologies a decade ago, and they become commercially available this year? Is a decade rapid enough for you? Because it certainly appears to have arrived early, peak oil not having the devastating effect predicted on gasoline prices or availability.
C) Desperate? Says who? I can go buy a Volt and go gasoline free for a majority of the year pretty easily. And so could 11 million other car buyers, if GM could build them that fast, which is unlikely of course.

Come on airline, you know it, I know it, the same old/same old routine of proclaiming this or that aspect of Doom right around the corner has been going on for decades, and its ALWAYS right around the corner....and will stay there, just as it has since 1886...or once I find the proper Newberry reference, 1875.

[AirlinePilot]

I never said DOOM, please stop the spin darn it!

I understand completely what you are saying, but I will just agree to disagree with you. Oil price has risen beyond the normal inflationary pressures inherent in any "normal" growth economy. There is a reason why and it isn't speculation.

It will be different once decline sets in and we move off the plateau. Standards of living must fall, and growth will not occur as it did in the last 100-200 years. Not unless some form of miraculous energy source is found very soon to replace oil and its use particularly in transportation.

That is what is different this time than all your other anecdotal peaks. When we pass the final one, it will be acknowledged at some point by everyone because they will no longer be able to hand wave it away as just another bump along the way as you do.

You claim we will have continued peaks and growth may continue in oil production, yet you somehow magically and blindly refuse the obvious evidence of decline and lack of discovery which is laid at your feet.

Oil's finite and we are living in the end time of it's reign as THE cheap energy source upon which our current levels of societal and economic growth are dependent on. Unless something comes along soon to allow the current happy motoring paradigm to continue at similar costs then the road ahead will be bumpy and difficult at the least. Human nature is to not react to things until they become obstacles. PO isnt an obstacle yet, but rest assured it will be. I'm with ole Montequest on this one. Unless some serious efforts are put in place to mitigate the coming decline I cant agree with you that replacement happens easily or quickly. My personal feeling is that its already past time to even react and some cornucopian transition phase over the next 20-30 years just doesn't happen without something fairly miraculous and soon with which to replace even modest oil production declines.

[shortonsense]

I never said DOOM, please stop the spin darn it!

Hey, you use the word KILLS for an economy which has been posting positive economic growth for how many quarters now? , I certainly can use the word DOOM for your implication that $6/gal gasoline prices can only continue upward, when we have plenty of post peak evidence to the contrary. I am "spinning" no more than you are.

I understand completely what you are saying, but I will just agree to disagree with you. I believe after careful study that things are changing more rapidly now than ever before. Oil price has risen beyond the normal inflationary pressures inherent in any "normal" growth economy. There is a reason why and it isn't speculation.

While speculation certainly has contributed to past false alarms about the "real" price of oil, I don't consider the current price anything more than a reflection of what the market currently thinks crude is worth, and certainly has nothing to do with inflationary pressures yet, and certainly you might consider current changes rapid, but they also were rapid when they were headed DOWN in 2008, and they were also rapid when they headed UP in the 70's, and they were also rapid when they headed DOWN in 1986. So sure, we can agree to disagree, I think the price of oil will continue to go up...until it goes down.....at which point it will head up....and so on and so forth. Implying it just only goes up ignores recent post peak evidence, we can disagree on the future of course, but the past examples of post peak price behavior are pretty historical in nature.

It will be different once decline sets in and we move off the plateau. Standards of living must fall, and growth will not occur as it did in the last 100-200 years. Not unless some form of miraculous energy source is found very soon to replace oil and its use particularly in transportation.

Certainly I must disagree with this statement, its implications and assumptions, and its disregard for the power of efficiency and behavioral change.

That is what is different this time than all your other anecdotal peaks. When we pass the final one, it will be acknowledged at some point by everyone because they will no longer be able to hand wave it away as just another bump along the way as you do.

When we pass the final one? Like the one Simmons, Ruppert and Deffeyes all said is in the past? Come on Airline, you must understand that I wouldn't be able to hand wave ANYTHING if there were shortages and rationing roiling the land, if the tractors weren't running and the Walmart trucks were all parked for lack of fuel.

But PO+5, and that isn't what is happening. I still buy as much premium gas as I need for the wifes sports car, and call me crazy but I'm betting you still buy fuel for your own personal aircraft, let alone the ones you fly professionally.

You claim we will have continued peaks and growth may continue in oil production, yet you somehow magically and blindly refuse the obvious evidence of decline and lack of discovery which is laid at your feet. That is your choice, and it is one you must acknowledge as opinion, just as I do.

I deny censored discovery graphs, bet your butt, I like data, REAL data, not the kind shoveled around the peaker community as "proof" of some scenario. Oil imports into the US are about the same now as they were 30+ years ago....are you denying that growth didn't happen between then and now, even without growth in crude used? And discovery has been proceeding quite apace of consumption, the EIA data says so, only of course you can't use the cherry picked information on the censored discovery graph is all. This has nothing to do with choice, other than I use ALL information and not just the stuff spoon fed to me by the peaker community.

[Ludi]

I still buy as much premium gas as I need for the wifes sports car

I know zip about economics, but isn't there a kind of rationing based on price? You seem to be saying that as long as the upper strata of income earners can afford gas, there's plenty of gas in the economy.

[AirlinePilot]

Certainly I must disagree with this statement, its implications and assumptions, and its disregard for the power of efficiency and behavioral change.

I still buy as much premium gas as I need for the wifes sports car, and call me crazy but I'm betting you still buy fuel for your own personal aircraft, let alone the ones you fly professionally.

All your observations will change when real decline sets in after we move off the plateau short. Why would you expect some sort of cataclysm of doom to befall us while we are on it?

I still buy fuel for my plane but ITS MORE EXPENSIVE NOW THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN IN . It IS hurting General aviation. Choose not to see it but Im right here telling you that it is having an effect NOW.

I see little chance that we will attain efficiencies and new technologies in any real magnitudes to offset decline. We wont go there until its forced on us. Its just human nature.