[pasttense]

I am curious as to what extent readers here have changed their views about peak oil over the last 5 years?

For me, 5 years ago I expected massive economic problems by now. Now I expect it will be a slower process--but the massive problems will still occur eventually.

On the other hand 5 years ago, I didn't expect climate change to affect me--that it would be such a slow process I would be dead by time the effects start showing up. Now it seems the climate is getting crazier every year.

[dorlomin]

I was figuring for peak in 2012. My outlook was sort of a rerun of what the UK went through in the 70s, high unemployment, low growth, inflation and a series of recessions to begin with.

Its not as bad as I expected so far, but not by much.

I used to joke I was more of a gloomer than a doomer and so far things a bit more gloomy than doomey.

[Rune]

I read avidly on the subject ever since Ken Deffeye's book appeared on the shelves in 1999. Discovered Die-off.org, read the whole thing. Read Heinberg's books, Kuunstler's books, and others. Found them very convincing and interesting.

Began posting on a variety of subjects in addition to oil here on PO.com in 2004 as "Carlhole", then "Schadenfreude", now "Rune". Became interested in the whole sustainability movement. Became aware of the Luddite community. Did not think much of them.

Bought or watched documentaries such as "The End Of Suburbia" and the others.

Saw much correlation between what was happening with regards to 911 and the subsequent US invasion of Iraq. Watched the constantly rising price of oil and market commentary on it such as from Maxwell and others. Became convinced, because of the violations of physics in the building collapses in NY, that 911 was indeed an inside job.

Paid attention to the anti-peak oil thesis as well and read a few of those books which appeared, mostly, after the 2008 debacle - the best one being "Oil and the Global Crisis: Predictions & Myths". Also found these books very convincing and interesting. Changed my mind about any sort of peak oil cause of civilizational collapse.

Decided that no imminent catastrophe due to oil shortages would appear any time soon. Decided that peak oil would probably be a demand peak rather than a supply peak, although we would probably experience a rocky energy road.

Watched A Post-Oil Man. Loved it.

Laughed my ass off when Matt Savinar, founder of the website LifeAfterTheOilCrash.com became an astrologer.

Concluded that sites like Die-off.org or PO.com tended to congregate people with a predilection to believe in extreme, apocalyptic events and who tend to only read other's opinions, block out the anti-theses - basically tend to be cluster****s.

Decided that alternatives to oil were fully within reach, such as small modular reactors, advanced nanosolar technologies, liquid fuels from genetically modified organisms, etc.

Became aware of the entirely, geometrically-opposed views of groups of people who were connected by themes of rapidly advancing science and technology, usually referred to as The Singularity. (Opposed geometrically to Luddites and various apocalyptic thinkers.

Decided to pay attention to alternative energy technologies since the higher price of oil would naturally liberate exploration into those. Decided that technological exploration into new energies was a much more interesting pursuit.

Became fascinated by the developments in cold fusion specifically, or what is now known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - although no one knows what the source of the excess heat is and/or whether it is even nuclear.

I am now quite assured that no peak oil apocalypse will ever happen; that a peak oil die-off a la Die-off.org is nothing but a juvenile fantasy at this point. But, of course, oil still drives economics and geopolitics and is still worth watching. Was not surprised when The Oil Drum went belly-up.

Became a pariah on PeakOil.com! Hurrah!

(Geez, sorts sounds like a resume, doesn't it?)

[Peak_Yeast]

My views hasnt changed much. But then my view was that a number of paths are possible at any given time.

Concerning massive crisis: Please ask the 100+ mio people extra that are on a slow death and starvation diet since the 2008 crisis if they think there are no massive crisis.

I believe we are HAVING a massive crisis, but it is largely untold - since its the marginalized poor people with no power that are being hit hardest. - And the world are sort-of tired of listening to their "whining" that they are dying - after all we have our own serious problems like "where am i going to get money for my next vacation since i got no raise" and it is their own fault for being too many, anyway... Its not my opinion, but that is how i interprete what the MSM decides to focus on and what people i know thinks.

I believe the situation is steadily worsening - but things this big gathers momemtum slowly and then suddenly very very fast - when the problems become politically necessary to act on or people "decides" enough is enough and crash the systems - which, of course, only makes things worse (refering to the arab spring here).

[Ibon]

The underlying principles that made the peak oil compelling to me 8 years ago are as relevant today. How could they not be since our global population in those 8 years increased by 600 million from 6.2 billion to 7 billion. And an increasing number of those 7 billion added significantly their consumption per capita.

Peak Oil may not be the main catalyst I once thought it might be in imposing consequences to this rapacious expansion of Kudzu Ape but it certainly will play out as one of the stresses to slow the one way linear growth that has been so destructive to our planet.

In the end I am focused on whatever the environmental limiting factors are, be they singular or a suite of factors, that reduces both our population and consumption.

We desperately need, for the counter intuitive reason of our own long term resilience as a species, to start incorporating the feedback of resource limits into our cultural evolution going forward. In this regard Peak Oil for me has always been a symptom of this lack.

[Plantagenet]

I met Ken Deffeyes when he came to University of Alaska to give a talk on Peak Oil. He visited in November 2005 and during his speech he said peak production was peaking almost exactly at that moment----and then he laid out his data and reasons for that conclusion.

It was a very unusual moment. Scientists almost never make specific predictions, and when they do they surround the predictions with all kinds of caveats and probabilities. But here was Deffeyes doing something quite daring for a scientist---making a clear prediction based on his data.

-------------

I started investigating Peak Oil almost immediately after Deffeye's talk. I started out being skeptical but quickly became convinced there was something to it. I started posting here about a year later.

Things have actually gone a little worse then I expected, in terms of the political and economic impact of peak oil. The 2005 production plateau wobbles up and down and is now 8 years old. Oil is being produced from tar sands and shale. Drilling is testing ever deeper waters in the ocean. Natural gas use is increasing. Energy is more expensive. Global recession and slower GDP growth has resulted. But even now no national energy policy or program to deal with peak oil has been put forwards in the USA. No national politician from either party has even made a speech about peak oil, even as the economy has stuttered and dribbled along for five years and energy prices have stayed high.

The next step in the peak oil story will be a gradual decrease in oil production from Ghawar and KSA, followed by gradual decrease in global oil production and another global recession. Maybe the political classes will get a clue about peak oil then.


Ghawar has peaked

[Plantagenet]

Obama..Obama.... Obama ...Obama... Obama's fault...Obama's fault.

If only the world was as simple as you make it, Peter.

[Rune]

The Peak Oil Collapse hypothesis completely disregards innovation and scientific discovery.

PO theorists freeze scientific and engineering knowledge and pretend that it is an unchanging, never-evolving quantity.

Sure! There is such a thing as petroleum depletion. But as oil becomes more expensive to extract, known alternatives become more economically feasible and the search for previously unknown energy alternatives intensifies.

If oil were still at $15/bbl, there would be no search for solutions to the problems which fossil fuels bring with them. A price of right around $100/bbl +/- $20 is perfect, for christsakes. The longer a high but manageable price is maintained, the better.

Over-population may indeed give us trials and tribulations in the future, but along with a high, very inter-connected global population comes incredible advances in technological problem-solving and advances in fundamental science. These are things that cannot be artificially frozen as if they were unchanging. No one knows how a future scientific discovery will change the world. It is impossible to predict such a thing.

You cannot simply ignore energy production developments like those that Joule Unlimited is exploring and has been successful at so far. You cannot simply ignore the advantages of factory-assembled Small Modular Reactors. You cannot simply ignore what is apparently a brand spanking new phenomenon in physics such as LENR. These things are real and are on their own growth curve.

The growth curve of even something like solar technology is still advancing in an exponential fashion as the likes of Ray Kurzweil have predicted.

No one knows the future! Science and Technology advance rapidly! These are things that Peak Oil Apocalyptics IGNORE with all their willful might and power.

Sorry, but I am not willfully ignorant. And this is the main thing I have learned from reading both sides of the peak oil argument, following the arguments that have been made in the sustainability movement as a whole, looking at the failures of past predictions and whatnot.

Another false assumption that is made here, is that civilization and the continued advancement of human beings relies upon growth. It doesn't. It is just that growth is all we have known for the last 2000 years. At some point, that growth will end. But that does not mean that civilization will end.

If growth becomes another problem to solve - and the problem becomes serious enough - there will be a solution to that problem that does not sacrifice the best of the what human civilization is all about.

In Richard Heinberg`s latest piece, he talks about the end of Consumerism. That's great! I am all for it.

But consumerism does not define human civilization. It is just an aspect of 20th century life. I see, from that article, that Heinberg has also backed way off of his 2004 themes of collapse. I'm not surprised.

I used to email that guy and he would retrn my emails. I should try it again to see what he thinks of the apparent development of an entirely new clean, green, safe, abundant and democratized energy source. I sometimes have to wonder why people like Heinberg refuse to write about developments such as this. Then again, no I don't have to wonder...its willful ignorance.

If anything, something like the advent of LENR or the approach taken by Joule Unlimited should be celebrated by the sustainability movement.

But it is not. The emphasis is always on Collapse.

There might be dramatic, even violent change, look at our history for chrissakes. But there won't be a collapse.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

I remember discovering this site and LATOC around late 2004. I was 19 at the time, and I remember having a pretty significant nervous breakdown for a while. There were members of this site who were convinced that we would be well on our way to complete anarchy by now. Those suggesting cannibalism within this decade were never ridiculed for being too unrealistic. It was a fairly dark place.

I don't want to say that I felt the situation was going to be that extreme by now. However, I definitely thought that the world would be considerably less recognizable. I didn't think my diabetic brother would still be alive today. I had moments of panic. I recall one time when I tried to take all $1000 that was in my bank account and convert to silver. I still to this day don't know what the fuck I was thinking.

I dropped out of school to reevaluate my life. I stopped going to a four-year university enrolled in an allied health program at my community college. I finished that and have been gainfully employed since. I even earned my BS without going into any debt. I plan on working on my MPH spring next year.

I thought for sure I'd be a loner, living somewhere completely different. I stayed in the Chicagoland area and got married. I am expecting a girl in November. I was hesitant to have a child, but sometimes those things happen. I don't know what the world will be like when she is my age, but I am confident she will still find life to be worth living. Fortunately, I married into a big, well-off, and well-connected family.

Looking back, I think my extremely grim views of the near-term future were more a reflection of my severe depression and lack of self-esteem I was experiencing at the time. The only "peak oiler" I regularly follow today in Ran Prieur, as he seems to be the only one not trying to sell you shit.

I don't know what the world will be like in another ten years. I believe it at the very least it will be more expensive and more difficult to travel. Nothing is guaranteed in life, however. I could die tomorrow, and it will have little affect on the grand scheme of things. So, I've learned not fret about conditions I have little control of and just do my best to continue learning and try not to make too many dumb decisions.

[SeaGypsy]

If anything, something like the advent of LENR or the approach taken by Joule Unlimited should be celebrated by the sustainability movement.

But it is not. The emphasis is always on Collapse.

There might be dramatic, even violent change, look at our history for chrissakes. But there won't be a collapse.

LENR is still not proven to be at all useful.

Some things have to collapse. Exponential functions always lead to collapse- population, consumerism, resource extraction.

The assumption that technology will replace our hundred plus energy slaves each is a pretty mighty call.

What form collapse takes is always going to be in contention, until the aftermath, when the wisdom of hindsight kicks in.

[Subjectivist]

For a long time I was sure humans would always invent their way out of resource shortages via substittion. Then I discovered this website back in late 2004 when I was researching biodiesel. Here I met people like Pops & Aaron who were pretty level headed, but I also met MQ and his chorus of sycophants who were sure The End Is Nigh!!!

They managed to convince me, I bought and read several books by Deffeys, Hienberg & Simmons and I was convinced.

However in the last five years I have had many people declare me an idiot for believing in doom. Now I am convinced doom could happen, but that too many things could delay it for even longer so I have given up trying to guess just when decline will set in.

[rockdoc123]

well back when I joined this site somewhere in the first year of so I showed my prediction for peak as being somewhere around 2013 -2015 based on all the proprietary information I had at the time from the likes of Wood MacKenzie and IHS Energy plus a bit of my knowledge about delays in West Africa offshore and the Caspian. Given that was based on not just crude but condensate and heavy oil I suspect I am not that far off. Of course this is all to do with errors cancelling. I couldn't have foreseen the economic collapse (hey we all knew it was going to happen just when was the question, or whether or not there wasn't someway of avoiding it...the first Bank failure told us what was going to happen), nor the shale boom (back then we were all pretty sceptical about shale mainly from the technology/cost perspective). Nor could any of us have foreseen Arab Spring and its impact (Libya mainly) nor the demand profiles that would be changing in the emerging markets and North America (at odds to one another). That being said when predictions are made you hope you get at the average outcome...errors probably cancel.
I've been aware of Peak Oil since my undergrad years in the sixties/seventies. I had a thesis supervisor who worked for King Hubbert and another who was there for his famous revealing speech at the AAPG meeting in the fifties. I reported to a CEO for many years who was one of the few top oil and gas people to buy into the idea of Peak Oil and say so publicly when it wasn't a popular concept. So it has been something close in my thoughts for many years.
That being said...pretty much what I thought would happen. People tend to look for the doom scenarios....for some reason they gravitate to them (hence the popularity of all the end of the world movies, zombies etc), but the reality is the system moves much slower. The pain will be long and drawn out, not short and sweet. Unfortunately man doesn't seem to work well until panic sets in and in the case of coming up with viable, economic energy alternatives it might be too little and too late.

[Keith_McClary]

Concluded that sites like Die-off.org or PO.com tended to congregate people with a predilection to believe in extreme, apocalyptic events and who tend to only read other's opinions, block out the anti-theses - basically tend to be cluster****s.

You are focusing on a minority of people at PO.

Became fascinated by the developments in cold fusion specifically, or what is now known as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions - although no one knows what the source of the excess heat is and/or whether it is even nuclear.

Seems to me it would be an "extreme event" if anything came out of this after a quarter century of ******.

[ralfy]

The use of non-conventional production plus global financial crisis (ironically) helped. But because of energy returns and decline curves for the former plus increased consumption for the rest of the world, oil prices remain high, together with prices of various goods, and with that continued effects of the crisis, as seen in social unrest, unemployment, etc. The effects of environmental damage and global warming didn't help, either.

From there, we need to consider a decline in conventional production, and if other sources of energy can make up for that, meet increasing demand, and provide for additional supplies for a transition to other sources of energy. This is the only way to discount "doom scenarios".

Also, there's no such thing as pain that's "short and sweet," unless one assumes that the pain will disappear quickly because things will go back to normal or get better.

[westexas]

Using the latest EIA data, GNE and ANE, as defined above, were respectively at 96% and 86% (of 2005 values) in 2012.

At least through 2012, the dominant global pattern that we have seen is that developed net oil importing countries like the US were gradually being shut out of the global market for exported oil via price rationing, as developing countries, led by China, consumed an increasing share of a post-2005 declining volume of GNE.

In my opinion, the key driver behind the 10 year increase in annual Brent crude oil prices, from $25 in 2002 to $112 in 2012 was the fact that the Chindia region was consuming an increasing share of GNE. Or, if we express it as the ratio of GNE to Chindia's Net Imports (CNI), the GNE/CNI ratio fell from 11.9 in 2002 to 5.0 in 2012. At the 2005 to 2012 rate of decline in the GNE/CNI ratio (9.5 to 5.0), the Chindia region alone would theoretically consume 100% of GNE in only 17 years. Note that Available Net Exports (ANE), what I define as GNE less CNI, fell from 40.7 mbpd in 2005 to 34.9 mbpd in 2012.

Of course, I think that we can all agree that the Chindia region will not be consuming 100% of Global Net Exports of oil in 2030, and the question is how and why it won't happen. The most likely scenario is at least a slowdown in the rate of increase in Chindia's demand. On the other hand, the Chindia region is just the leading example of increasing demand in developing countries.

In any case, I expect to see a continuing cyclical pattern of higher annual highs and higher annual lows in crude oil prices.

In regard to the US, the (so far) peak in US crude oil production (EIA, C+C) was in 1970, at 9.6 mbpd. Since 1970, we have seen an "Undulating Decline" pattern in US crude oil production, as new sources of oil have come on line, and then peaked and declined, e.g., the North Slope of Alaska. Using, IMO, a conservative estimate of 10%/year for the decline rate for existing US oil production would mean that the industry would have to replace 100% of current oil production over the next 10 years, in order to just maintain current production.

[Pops]

I love these threads where all you can see is the tops of folks' heads as they contemplate their belly buttons, LOL. Turns out I started writing a response several times but don't have time right now to edit it down so it's just long. But reading is voluntary, there will be no quiz.

--
The long and short of it is oil production is flat or declining everywhere but 14 counties in the US and the world economy reflects it.
--

I guess I'd say that the bad things are going along as I feared they might and the good things not so much. Transition, mitigation, whatever you might call it has moved along sporadically but at this point is at a rather low ebb thanks to a good bit of PR from the Oil Biz - kudos to those in the biz who post some reality here.

--
The spare capacity crunch and price run up to '08 was a surprise. I didn't think China was growing that fast. It felt like when you get caught up in a crowd and it sweeps you along and even though you try to resist, there is no way to get traction. I remember being in Colorado or maybe Utah and going down this steep little mountain road and I couldn't gear down or hand brake enough to keep my speed down and my brakes just kept fading. Just on the verge of out of control I was able to stop in a turnout, just barely. That was how I felt in '08.

--
Going back (for those who give a rip) I was pretty well doing my thing until 9/11 when I pulled my head out of the sand to see what was going on. The head fake we made to Afghanistan then rush into Iraq by the Neo-Cons and OilCo Sock Puppet in Chief was a true shock to me. The follow up militarization and bootheel on civil rights under the Orwellian titled DHS pretty well freaked me out.

I'd read the '98 SciAm article by Campbell and LaHair and was a ZPG and "Limits" disciple and natural raised prepper since a kid but the attacks both foreign and especially domestic got my attention. I started poking around a little more into the reasons behind it. Die Off and Wolf at the Door and LATOC and a few other sites popped up. But there was no real data available to civilians and the only sites with commentary on PO were more than a little doomerish and of course no forums that stuck (until this one) to talk out the situation, aside from the run of the mill guns and bibles survivalist blather that is.

--
Even by '01 I'd already figured the California RE boom was getting long in the tooth but when an employee of mine said he was buying a house even though his credit was trashed (he owed the IRS big-time) and he was not even required to show proof of income... I knew the jig was about up. We decided to abandon ship, not because of imminent PO but because of the RE & credit bubbles. By '03 the idea was pretty firm to cash out of CA and to make our bubble equity into real equity somewhere that had not gone nuts. Of course I'd always planned to retire to a little hobby farm so that's what we did, just a little early.

When PO.com started up in April of '04 I found it pretty quick, there had been a couple of other forums by then that I'd tried to pump the hits on but they didn't go anywhere. Back then I took Campbell and LaHair's estimates (sorry Jean, I can never remember how to spell your name) for peak happening sometime in the oughts and figured that was the earliest and sometime in the teens more likely. Oil production may go on for 200-300 years and with that size curve the top is gonna be broad and the peak hard to see so the date of peak wasn't the biggest worry. More important is the rate of decline post-peak and especially how people/government/society takes the news. Aaron, our once Admin and Official 800# Gorilla said "Don't fear PO, Fear the reaction." I still do.

Back in '04, in the first thread I ever posted to on this site Matt Savinar said to some teenager that 80% of the population was going to die off. And of course zombies vs unicorns has been the ongoing push-pull, on the site and in my little brain since the beginning. My nature and experience tell me that bad things happen and we here in the US don't know the half of it. But I also know for a fact that humans are resilient even if not as magical as some folks believe. For a long time I tried very hard to talk a whole lot about what I was doing to move toward, as Loki says, pre-emptive poverty. The PFTF forum here was really the first "doing" forum on the web with a specific focus on post-peak living. I feel pretty sad that it is more or less dead nowadays, most folks who are actually doing things have moved to forums without the daily denial we allow here.

--
The most optimistic thing I can say today is that '08 is behind us. We were running full tilt and most people thought the party would never end, like the old song; "Goin' 90 miles an hour down a dead end street." If we'd actually moved directly into permanent global decline as the biggest media personalities at the time were predicting we'd have been in a world of hurt. As it was, lots of regular folks in the rich world did take a big hit. But - they have had a chance to adjust and they no longer believe in some of the silly things they believed for a while there.

I'm afraid we still have some hard lessons to learn.

--
At the Earth Summit in 1992, King George the Elder famously said:
"The American way of life is not negotiable."

No one has had the balls to stand up and say anything different and I'm afraid we're running out of bargaining room

.

[ROCKMAN]

Like rocdoc I was made aware of PO (what we called the reserve replacement problem) when I started with Mobil in 1975. And thanks to research projects of some of my undergrad profs I was aware of the potential for AGW in the 70’s long before that acronym was used.

But let’s focus on the PO date vs. the POD. More specifically the increased competition for the same amount of oil production. In the early 2000’s global oil rates and prices were costing the world economies about $700 billion per year. The last few years the total cost of oil for the world’s economies has been about $2.7 trillion.

I think most would agree that we haven’t reached global PO yet. Maybe closer than some believe but not there yet. But if not there is still a $2 trillion/year additional wealth transfer from consumers to producers in less than 10 years. Not insignificant especially since we haven’t reach peak production yet. Or have we? What seems obvious is that the amount of oil producers are capable of delivering isn’t nearly as critical as what they can charge for that oil. Does it change the current global economic situation if the KSA really has 3 mm bopd they could bring on line if they aren’t willing to produce it? And if that were the case wouldn’t that make today’s current production rate the equivalent of global PO? PO is generally defined as the max oil production rate achieved for a region. Taken the entire world as the region and if the KSA and other exporters capable of producing more oil chose not to produce more than current levels we may be at global PO today. There is nothing in the definition of PO that requires that rate to be the max CAPABILITY but just the ACTUAL rate even if it’s kept low by choice.

So, if that premise holds water, we are at global PO today. Could we increase the global oil rate in the future? Possibly but the question would then be who would do so and, more importantly, why? The KSA has increased its revenue from oil sales by hundreds of % in the last 6 years while increasing production very little. What would motivate them to change that dynamic by producing more oil which could only happen by lowering their price? Add increased oil production by some regions, like the US, and it might actually motivate the KSA to cut back on production a bit to keep prices up. OTOH with increased consumption by China et al there may be no need for the KSA to change their volumes up or down if they can continue making record incomes.

The Rockman thereby claims the world has reached PO. Unless, of course, we start producing significantly more oil down the road. But one thing for sure IMHO: the world has slammed headlong into that POD brick wall.

[AirlinePilot]

I started digging into the oil price and why Hurricane's seemed to be affecting it rather dramatically post Katrina. I soon found a lot of information talking about PO. I found this site and others. I was a lot more worried 8 or 9 years ago then I am now, but Im also not deluding myself with some cornucopian fantasy about alternatives etc. I see the major effort still being applied to BAU. Obviously on a finite planet this cannot continue without some very miraculous things happening over the next decade or two.

I think in the last few years it has become evident to me...like others here..that the doomer's view was obviously flawed, but only in the manner of how the world economic and energy systems move. I was never a fast crash doomer or die off type. I see PO through the prism of what Kunstler called "The long Emergency". I still completely buy into that. Its just going to come a few years farther down the road than I had thought many years ago.

I still believe that we are not doing enough to supplant what oil does for us and I do think there will be a crossover event down the road where no matter what demand and economics dictate, the declines will become greater than the global system can manage. The press for BAU is still full court and I feel like we are hanging in some precarious balance. The flat to negative economic reality of failing Western economies and banking systems, along with its money system is both linked to and MASKING the real impact of PO. The POD and West Texas's Export land Model thesis are the key elements to watch now. At some point soon the decline off of the peak will become a reality. I had thought a while back that this would have already happened by now. Now I think it is still a few years off, but when this paradigm shifts I think the accelerated nature of POD related problems becomes much greater. Not doomerish, or die off catastrophic, but definitely more pronounced and more frequent than present.

I find it actually quite amazing that the price of gasoline has been so well absorbed as of late. I can recall a time not long ago when the thought of paying more than 2$/gal here in the US was startling to me. Now I would welcome that price gladly!