[Tikib]

Whilst this website is obsessed with the idea of peak oil, I am pretty sure we have now gone past peak demand for oil as the world moves towards alternatives.

But we need to accelerate this process as fast as we can for both the economy and the environment. If we reduce oil usage now in areas that are easy to replace with alternatives(including not using the energy at all) then it means we will have more oil for longer for things which are very difficult to replace with alternatives.

[Subjectivist]

I have yet to see any evidence of demand in decline.

[Tikib]

There isn't enough extra oil coming out of saudi/shale to create as sustained a period of low oil prices if demand wasn't decreasing as well.

[onlooker]

There isn't enough extra oil coming out of saudi/shale to create as sustained a period of low oil prices if demand wasn't decreasing as well.

Very true as evidenced by the general worldwide economic slowdown and also by the fact that while oil prices are lower they are NOT low. Therefore, that is also dampening demand.

[Tikib]

My suggestion is find a way to reduce your personal oil usage as much possible. The petrol/diesel car is a 20th century technology that needs to be sent to the dustbin of history.

[onlooker]

Especially when considering that 70% of oil use in the US is for Transportation.

[Plantagenet]

we need to .... reduce oil usage now

Thats highly unlikely to happen now that the price of oil has collapsed during the current oil glut. Lower oil prices are likely to lead to MORE oil use. Already the sales of EVs and Hybrid cars in the US are falling.

The most efficient way to reduce oil use is to make oil more expensive, for instance by imposing a carbon tax. Unfortunately, while politicians like Obama promise that they will institute a carbon tax when running for office, they are too cowardly to take this step once they are elected.

[ralfy]

Related:

"What Are The Top Five Facts Everyone Should Know About Oil Exploration?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/ ... ploration/

[Tanada]

Do you really want to assure a steady state high oil price that allows for expansion of oil resources like tight rock formations and tar sands and super heavy crude? Or do you want low prices to crush investment that restricts supply that drives prices up and allows expansion into tight rock formations, super heavy crude and tar sands?

Either way until we decide as an entire planet to stop burning fossil fuels the song will remain the same, we will extract and burn every gram we can get our energy wasting paws on.

If you want to even things out and make a smoother transition I only see one way, the USA/China/India/EU/Russia all agree to set an international price control of say $110.00/bbl for all oil. That would encourage reworking of conventional fields and expanded tight formation drilling world wide as oil companies would have a guaranteed sale price. All crude would be sold directly to the governments of each area, they would then contract refiners to process the crude into useful petrochemicals and the government would then distribute the fuel through wholesalers at a fixed price that would allow the economy to function, somewhere close to $1.00/gallon wholesale. Every government would be subsidizing oil twice, first with the guaranteed sale price and again with the discounted wholesale price. That would allow the economy to function and taxes for economic processes to be collected to replace the subsidy costs to the government.

I said way back in 2008 when all the bail outs were all the rage for the 'to big to fail' corporations that we were following the wrong path. All that did was pour money into the part of the economy that is pure paper, it settled book balances without stimulating anything but more bad lending behavior. If you took that same TRILLION dollars of stimulus from 2008-2009 and instead subsidized fuel at the pump as has been the practice in many oil exporting countries for decades you would have created many TRILLIONS in taxable GDP instead of in untaxed paper GDP that ads nothing to the real economy.

[ennui2]

If you took that same TRILLION dollars of stimulus from 2008-2009 and instead subsidized fuel at the pump

And whither goes concern for global warming in all of this?

[Tanada]

If you took that same TRILLION dollars of stimulus from 2008-2009 and instead subsidized fuel at the pump

And whither goes concern for global warming in all of this?

Way back when even Matt Savinar was pointing out you can not have it both ways. Either you have a growing economy, or you have a low carbon impact. So long as the economy is tied to fossil fuels you can not have both. We are going to burn it all eventually, most days I think we are better off burning it fast so the impact is just a blip in the long run instead of burning it slow and creating permanent changes. Of course by now we have probably started the avalanche, but we can not be certain of that.

We live in a Faux Democracy where every person with the financial capacity to do so burns fossil carbon. That will not change no matter what pretty speeches politicians give. We the people all over the planet are voting to burn carbon based fossil fuels with every key stroke we type on on computers, every refrigerated food item we buy at the market, every food item we consume that was shipped from somewhere over the horizon to where we happen to be.

[ennui2]

Very true as evidenced by the general worldwide economic slowdown and also by the fact that while oil prices are lower they are NOT low. Therefore, that is also dampening demand.

Need I remind you of the late Matt Simmons take on what "cheap" oil really is?

For what oil does to power society, you damn well bet it's cheap right now. Just because it isn't at all-time-lows doesn't mean it isn't propping up BAU in a big way.

For anyone in the industrialized world with even a low-wage job, the price of gas or fuel oil at this level is not "dampening" their demand in any significant way.

[Pops]

Whilst this website is obsessed with the idea of peak oil, I am pretty sure we have now gone past peak demand for oil as the world moves towards alternatives.

I won't try to change your opinion but will just state that oil demand growth is at the highest level in 5 years. It fell on higher prices and is growing on lower. Consult any reporting agency if you are interested in actual numbers.

Aside from that, I am really happy with the progress of alt energy over the last decade. Prices have fallen more than I had hoped. Various marketing schemes are emerging, like the long term leases from SolarCity. Battery tech has leapt ahead too. But, alts contribution to total consumption (aside from hydro) are still in the single digits. Better than a sharp stick in the ryr but not changing the game.

I think the increase in CAFE standards is huge as it drives the technology of efficiency. IOW, no matter your commitment, if the tech for lower consumption is not available it is not an option.

Also I believe a majority of consumers have been sensitized to the idea that oil is finite. Whether they believe there is 10-100-1,000 years easy oil available, or that they will be preemptively Raptured or whacked by Hood-Goblins (to use a Cog-ism) they have thought about PO. After you see a headline that says "Saudi America" when you see another that says "Saudi America—NOT!" you will at least grasp the idea.

[onlooker]

Yes Ennui on more careful inspection your right. Yet we also know that not too much higher truly knocks the Economy off it's kilter as evidenced by the shock waves when it reached $147. It seems other factors like onerous debt are having a more pronounced effect on the economy yet oil price cannot but always be a integral part of any economic outlook and current condition.

[ennui2]

Yes Ennui on more careful inspection your right. Yet we also know that not too much higher truly knocks the Economy off it's kilter as evidenced by the shock waves when it reached $147. It seems other factors like onerous debt are having a more pronounced effect on the economy yet oil price cannot but always be a integral part of any economic outlook and current condition.

And again, I have to remind people that the credit crisis trumped and obscured what high oil prices were going to do to the economy had it persisted or worsened. The most direct impact from that era was the damage it did to the airline industry. They probably would be first on the chopping block. But we don't really know what the breaking point is where the economy tanks on oil prices alone rather than other factors. It could very well be that society adapts to $150 oil by using less of it, sort of how Europeans are able to function with much higher gas prices. It's possible to cut the fat out of oil consumption and still keep a high GDP--up to a point, and God knows there's a lot of fat in US oil consumption that can be cut.

I used to think that $150 oil would stop the combines from reaping wheat and stop trucks from delivering goods to supermarkets but basic necessities are less sensitive to oil shocks than that.

[Subjectivist]

I used to think that $150 oil would stop the combines from reaping wheat and stop trucks from delivering goods to supermarkets but basic necessities are less sensitive to oil shocks than that.

I never thought that because it violates human nature. The humans who are in charge in general got where they are through a lot of wheeling and dealing, and they want very much to stay in charge. That means you have to keep the majority of Joe6P contented, and that means food has to be grown or imported and delivered to the people.

[ennui2]

I used to think that $150 oil would stop the combines from reaping wheat and stop trucks from delivering goods to supermarkets but basic necessities are less sensitive to oil shocks than that.

I never thought that because it violates human nature. The humans who are in charge in general got where they are through a lot of wheeling and dealing, and they want very much to stay in charge. That means you have to keep the majority of Joe6P contented, and that means food has to be grown or imported and delivered to the people.

That argument makes no sense. Just because TPTB want Joe6P contented doesn't mean they can trump the laws of thermodynamics. The rhetoric behind peak oil was that we convert oil into food. Less oil = less food. That's where the survival gardening meme kicks in. And I learned that food production and food prices are less impacted by oil prices than the doomer hype indicated. Not that prices didn't go up, but not painfully so, and not to the point where we started to see shortages at the grocery store.

BAU has a breaking point and I don't think $150 is it. It's a pain-point, an adaptation point, but not a breaking point.

If you want to follow the logic of your argument, we would, for instance, eventually see rationing type measures like the current water-restrictions happening in California. We saw none of that in the agricultural sector in 2008. Standard supply and demand was in effect. In fact we saw a move to biofuels like corn ethanol, indicating that the US was still producing a huge surplus of food. The shortages happened when we could export less to the rest of the world, who are far less able to feed themselves.

[Subjectivist]

I used to think that $150 oil would stop the combines from reaping wheat and stop trucks from delivering goods to supermarkets but basic necessities are less sensitive to oil shocks than that.

I never thought that because it violates human nature. The humans who are in charge in general got where they are through a lot of wheeling and dealing, and they want very much to stay in charge. That means you have to keep the majority of Joe6P contented, and that means food has to be grown or imported and delivered to the people.

That argument makes no sense. Just because TPTB want Joe6P contented doesn't mean they can trump the laws of thermodynamics. The rhetoric behind peak oil was that we convert oil into food. Less oil = less food. That's where the survival gardening meme kicks in. And I learned that food production and food prices are less impacted by oil prices than the doomer hype indicated. Not that prices didn't go up, but not painfully so, and not to the point where we started to see shortages at the grocery store.

BAU has a breaking point and I don't think $150 is it. It's a pain-point, an adaptation point, but not a breaking point.

If you want to follow the logic of your argument, we would, for instance, eventually see rationing type measures like the current water-restrictions happening in California. We saw none of that in the agricultural sector in 2008. Standard supply and demand was in effect. In fact we saw a move to biofuels like corn ethanol, indicating that the US was still producing a huge surplus of food. The shortages happened when we could export less to the rest of the world, who are far less able to feed themselves.

Rationing oil use structured so that food production and distribution get first civilian use, right after the military and Police forces, is exactly how I see it going at some point. We didn't see it in 2008 because oil was still relatively speaking, plentiful. There was zero risk that farmers would not produce or that trucking companies would not distribute food. After peak as world supplies fall that will no longer be true, in that situation it is easily possible that the governments all over the planet will step in and limit who has legal access to fuel.

[onlooker]

Pstar hit at the heart of the discontinuity which peak oil promises. Fossil fuels truly are the life blood of our and other rich countries economies. The original post alludes to moving away from oil. Of course the devil is in the details. How to move away from oil when it provides the basis for practically all economic activity and in many way allows us to eat, drink, move, have medical attention etc. We do not have any reliable substitute. But I am repeating what you guys know and have heard already quite often. I am not sure what the dispute between Pstar and Ennui is about therefore. At some point conditions related to scarcity of CHEAP oil will create seismic shifts in our economy.