Peak oil? Hardly.

[aztc]

From the 138th (Extraordinary) Meeting of the OPEC Conference 12/12/2005:

Having reviewed the oil market situation, the Conference observed that the market has been well supplied and commercial stocks, especially of crude oil, have been building, in terms of absolute levels and forward days' cover. This is due to OPEC's prompt responses and willingness to provide the market, if and when needed, with the required supplies.

The Conference further considered the outlook for 2006 and noted that the ceiling adopted by OPEC in its 136th (Extraordinary) Meeting in June 2005 of 28.0 mb/d (excluding Iraq) will be adequate, if fully observed, to balance the market for the first quarter of the year. However, in view of the supply/demand outlook for the second and third quarters 2006, when demand is seasonally lower, thus requiring reduced supplies from OPEC to balance the market, the Conference decided to convene an Extraordinary Meeting in Vienna, Austria, on 31 January 2006, in order to review the situation and take the appropriate decisions on production levels for the second and third quarters of the year. The Conference also reconfirmed that its next Ordinary Meeting will convene in Vienna, Austria, on 8 March 2006.

In taking the foregoing decision, the Conference reaffirmed the Organization's determination to take all measures deemed necessary to keep market stability and maintain prices at reasonable levels through the provision of adequate supplies, as it has demonstrated repeatedly in the past, including the recent offer to make its additional capacity of 2.0 mb/d available for three months, an offer that expires on 31 December 2005 and which, the Conference noted, had not been taken up by the market because it is so well-supplied.

http://www.opec.org/opecna/Press%20Releases/2005/pr232005.htm

[Nordmadr]

1. Right....OPEC says there is plenty of oil, so I guess I'll just have to

believe them, because you know, there is no evidence at all to indicate that their fields are beginning to drop in productivity.

:sarcasm:

Olafr

[aztc]

4. The point is price

These guys are laughing their ass off at 'consumers' hooked on oil and set the price by CUTTING PRODUCTION when demand drops.

We know who controls supply, guess who controls demand...

The MISSION of the Drive 55 Conservation Project is to reduce petroleum consumption by 20%-50%.
http://Drive55.org

Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel:

SUV: 4,068
Air: 3,476
Bus: 4,415
Car: 3,553
Train: 2,100

Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
http://199.79.179.77/publications/nts/index.html

Jet Fuel 3000+ ppm Sulfur
Off-road diesel 500+ ppm Sulfur
Regular on-road diesel 15-500 ppm Sulfur
Ultra Low Sulfur diesel less than 15 ppm Sulfur

The MISSION of the PEACE TRAIN to DC is to deliver a message of PEACE THROUGH CONSERVATION to the WORLD.
http://PeaceTraintoDC.com

[Bru]

46. Are you trying to say...

that cars are more efficient than buses? These statistics appear to be misleading. Furtherfore, I couldn't find "Average BTU consumed Per Passenger mile by mode of travel" in the 2005 BTS report. I found raw data (Table 4-6: Energy Consumption by Mode of Transportation] but some transit data was undefined and this certainly isn't per passenger. Please explain statistics more before you just throw them out there.

[aztc]

53. Here we go again...

I already dug this up once, but wht the hell, it's easy to remember Table 4-20
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_04_20.html

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Some things are bugging me about those figures...

Comparing aircraft to transit buses is one thing that doesn't make sense - based on these figures, I promise not to catch a 747 from my road to Wellington Bus depot again. Or travel to Auckland in a bus that stops every quarter-mile to drop-off/collect passengers. Why have they missed out inter-city bus figures?

Another thing is the figure for cars. Gasoline contains 125k btu per gallon, which would make for over 34 mpg average for US cars: Average occupancy seems to be about 1.2, so we can bring that down to 29 passenger miles per gallon (we're into fuzzy math here, a car's mpg drops with extra load) but it's well over the reported average by drivers, which lurks around the low to mid 20's.

Oh, and the ATA figues on that table don't match these figures (pg 3), also from the ATA (135k btu/gallon for std jet fuel).

So what's up with these tables? Is someone 'helping' the BTS with thier sums, or am I missing something?

[aztc]

57. Numbers are suspect - I agree

I agree, the tables and numbers often do not add up. Especially since about sometime around 2000-2001...hey, isn't that when bushco started running things?

[Dead_Parrot]

60. Ooh, you old cynic...

Glad it's not just me... :) It's a bit like the US national debt listed in the CIA factbook as "$1.4 trillion (2001 est.)". I'm sure they could have updated that at some point...
*cough cough $8.1 trillion cough cough*
:D

[Massacure]

61. National debt is debt held outside the country isn't it?

So while the figure is old, it probably isn't $8.1 trillion because a lot of that is held by American citizens and corporations.

[Dead_Parrot]

62. It's debt outside the government...

...in the form of bonds. So far as I can make out, 4.7 trillion is held by the US population, 3.4 is held by non-US governments. The 4.7 includes foriegn investors (ie, non-government), but probably not a significant amount.

Edit: Either way, it's 8 trillion that the US government simply does not have, and owes to someone. If everyone started cashing in the bonds, the only way to raise the money would be a massive tax hike. Based on the last few years, it wouldn't be the rich, who can afford to buy the bonds, who would pay this: it would be you poor bastards.

Incidentally, in Dec 2001 they started selling "Patriot bonds" (Excuse me while I hurl my lunch.:puke:). The current admin is treating US government bonds like a pyramid scheme, where people cashing the bonds is off-set by more people buying them. The moment people stop buying them, you're all fucked.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Whatever!

[aztc]

15. doomsday forecasts counterproductive, here is why

If doomsday comes, little preparation will do much good, else it wouldn't be doomsday. Therefore investing inordinate energy, resources and time into 'preparing' for and 'discussing' doomsday actually serves to distract from reality and right now solutions.

'What the hell, the end is near, might as well live it up', and "I am just one person/family/business, there isn't much I can do anyway' are the resulting defeatist attitudes that mock rather than embrace simple solutions like Drive 55 and stop flying jet aircraft.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Are you suggesting that the "world as we know it" will not end

after all the cheap energy is used up?

Please explain your position.

on edit: Iraq was just the FIRST resource war.

[aztc]

17. Cheap energy is already 'used up'

My point is that it is already artificially low at the pump - kept at the price the market will bear by the suppliers, after consideration of the hefty subsidies that slip under the doors of congress.

America 'ran out' of cheap energy in the 70's not due to a shortage of oil (remember - consumption is at record levels now) the shortage became CONTROL of the oil. When OPEC flexed it's muscles we bowed, mandated the 55 MPH speed limit for 2 decades and invested heavily in technologies for other energy carriers.

Here we are 30 years later, consuming more oil than ever, and even the folks who claim to be looking for solutions refuse to give up the very thing that is the real problem, consumption. Think about it, the people that attended the Montreal climate change conference - do suppose they drove their hybrids? Hardly - they flew in jet aircraft and rode in luxury vehicles from the airport to the climate controlled building where they gorged on and wasted enough to power entire villages. And that is just one, these consumers have these 'meetings' on a regular basis - to 'discuss' the problem. What a joke.

[BlueEyedSon]

26. Cheap is under $10 a gallon for argument's sake.... nt

[aztc]

34. In fact, $10 gas would solve many problems

I would vote in favor of $10 gas tomorrow with one important proviso: the extra $8 per gallon would go to build Solar Train Systems in every city and a network of high speed rail separate from freight on existing right-of-way: the Interstate highway system.

:party: :yourock: :applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[4dsc]

56. You still didn't answer the question

Do you expect America and the rest of the world to continue as normal on the other side of peak?? What's your expextations of how will will "survive" with less oil, alot less oil???

[aztc]

58. Survivors WILL use a LOT less

My proposal is to go ahead and start living on half as much now. I am proposing folks not wait for TEOTWAWKI or for a magic silver bullet that will enable them to continue the levels of consumption they do now, and to go ahead and start riding a bike instead. Stop flying in jets. Use less now and get used to it, thus the crisis will be averted in two ways: one, by using less we extend the supply, and two, by adapting to a lifestyle using less, you will suffer no shock.

In any case, everyone WILL eventually use less, some by choice and some while kicking, screaming and blaming someone else for their tragedy. Everyone makes this choice, every day, now.

[4dsc]

63. Great proposal but

just how do you believe this country's economy would react to using less oil?? Isn't our great nation and economy built upon an ever expanding economy?? What you are proposing is a POWER DOWN!! Would that avert a crisis or start one??

IMHO, there is a crisis coming that cannot be averted.. AMericans are too selfish. And there's no real leadership that will take the bull by the horns and give it the American people in manner that will count..

Perhaps http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ is correct after all??

[Raster]

3. I'm a tad confused aztc. Are you believing OPEC's press release and

therefore disseminating the joyous news to all, or should this post have had a "sarcasm" tag somewhere?

Just checkin'...

[aztc]

5. We will NEVER 'run out' of petroleum

The price will certainly change, but we will never 'run out' of oil. In fact, safe drinking water is already more scarce than crude oil. There will always be plenty of oil for those that can afford it and/or are willing to pay for it. The peak of ECONOMICAL production has already come and gone here in N.A. which is why we are 'spreading democracy' in places where it still only costs $1 per barrel to pump it out of the ground.

For $5-$6 retail fuel, we can make more syn-fuel than we could ever use - from coal, using WW2 technology. It's all about the price at the pump. Individual consumers have direct control over this price with their right foot and transportation choices chief among a variety of behaviors that could be modified.

[Nordmadr]

7. Well, I do agree that we will never actually run out. There will

be plenty of oil that stays in the ground forever, either physically unrecoverable, or financially unrecoverable.

I do however disagree with you on the coal front. Perhaps at that price range we could make synthetic fuels of some sort, but for how long,and at what environmental cost? Let's just use up every resource we have, pollute the shit out of the planet, and in the end, we will still run out of practical fuels of this sort. We will learn nothing in that process at all.

A new paradigm will ultimately be necessary in my view. One that entails conservation and sustainable uses of renewable fuel sources as well as largely localized economies. If we don't set this plan in motion very soon, it is going to get real shitty for the vast majority of the population. Perhaps that is why the government of this country is working real hard to make the affluent in this Nation well, even more affluent, while the vast majority of us "have nots" will have less.

Things are not rosy here, and not exactly the kind of "interesting times" I would choose to live in.

BTW, how many people are going to be able to afford $5 - $6 fuel? Or the goods that we rely on to survive once their prices go through the roof as well due to their energy related costs? It is quite the tangled web, and the interconnectred fibers are plastic.

Olafr

[aztc]

18. Agreed, a new paradigm is required - but now

A new paradigm will ultimately be necessary in my view. One that entails conservation and sustainable uses of renewable fuel sources as well as largely localized economies. If we don't set this plan in motion very soon, it is going to get real shitty for the vast majority of the population.

We only disagree as to timing. I suggest we can all start today, rather than 'very soon' with two things:

http://Drive55.org & http://PeaceTraintoDC.com

[Strelnikov_]

9. Regarding Syn-Fuel Capabilities

It may be able to produce 'more than we could ever use' only if we reduce our consumption by a factor of 5 or more. At $6/gal., there is no way there would be this level of demand destruction.

You may want to review the Hirsh et.al. report for their estimate of syn-fuel capabilities as a mitigation option. Even under an emergency schedule, the time frame and quantities produced are sobering.

Considering that fields working with modern extraction are experiencing rate decreases of 8 to 10% per year post peak, there is no way fuel substitution will be viable as a sole mitigation option.

[aztc]

12. At $6 gallon, consumption would decrease

So that is my point. In fact, at $6 gallon we can make ethanol from biomass using enzymes (cellulosic conversion) - then of course fossil fuel consumption would decrease even further, thus extending the 'backside' of Hubert's peak.

[Strelnikov_]

23. Cellulosic Ethanol Production Is Still A Research Project

It appears promising, but we have no idea how it will produce at scale.

I generally agree with you that there are viable options that can be started, today, to reduce our dependency on petroleum as a liquid fuels source.

Where we depart is what appears to be your assertion that this new energy future can just be slip-streamed into our current infrastructure ('more than we could ever use').

I have reached the conclusion that the way out of the energy trap will include massive conservation and restructuring of our economy, with much 'sacrifice' (sacrifice of our current lifestyle, that is). I have reached the conclusion that the alternates will never yield the Quads of energy we currently harvest from non-renewable energy sources, particularly petroleum and natural gas.

[BlueEyedSon]

27. It IS $6 a gallon in Europe. I don't think consumption there has decreased

[aztc]

32. Some facts will help here

International Total Primary Energy and Related Information

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.html

[BlueEyedSon]

10. The peak will be this decade. Read me now, believe me later. nt

[Strelnikov_]

24. My Gut Tells Me We Are On The Plateau Now

Either way, we are long past the date to effect a painless transformation.

[Massacure]

30. I've heard 2010-2012. Not this decade but to close for a 17 a year old.

I graduate college in 2010 and who knows how much money i'll have in loans. A screwed up economy wouldn't be good for me then.

[aztc]

33. It is not a one day event

You will not wake up one day and find there is no more oil. You will wake up one day to learn that it costs $6 or more per gallon, and you may have to buy it from a guy with a 55 gallon drum on the back of his pickup truck, and you may have to get into fist-fights with your neighbors and the government may step in and mandate odd-even days based on license plate numbers and maybe enact a national speed limit to reduce consumption...hey this all sounds kinda familiar...

[enki23]

41. define "more scarce"

and an operational definition of "safe" would be nice as well.

[Bru]

47. Good and not-so-good solutions...

The best solution lies not in making synfuels or driving at our engine's most efficient speed. Those are indeed helpful, but they are only short-term mitigations.

The reality is not just that economical oil production has peaked, but the amount of oil in the ground has peaked. I don't count tar sands because that needs natural gas AND more oil to process it, so it is a red herring.

The absolute best and physically simplest thing we can do is to design cities in the future (and redesign current urban places to the greatest extent possible) so that we won't need cars in the first place, or at least will need them on rare, exceptional occasions. I have harped on this a lot in my limited time on here yet there are too many people who continue to believe that the answer lies within the automobile realm.

That said, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the revival of the passenger rail system.

[phantom power]

6. Gee. They guarantee our supply all the way thru next year...

I'm more interested in what they're willing to guarantee for 2016 than 2006. Sure they can fake it for while. But what can they sustain?

[aztc]

Whatever we demand

They will sustain whatever we demand, AND, more importantly, they will sustain the PRICE by CUTTING PRODUCTION.

[phantom power]

20. They can't sustain current demand forever. Their supply is finite.

It's going to run out. You can debate about when, but not if. OPEC's rosy claims about being able to meet the world's demand are happy-talk, about as credible as Bush's happy-talk about global warming and the US economy. They have to keep up appearences, or the herd will stampede.

[aztc]

22. No, it will not run out

It just will not 'run out' - but tell me, what is the motive for OPEC to paint a rosy picture? To keep the herd from stampeding? Does this really make sense to you? The herd is still grazing while war rages in Iraq and lined up to fight over $3 to $6 gas just weeks ago. Hmmm, odd how the price fell back to levels just low enough to keep the herd flowing through the malls for Xmass...

[phantom power]

25. Well, yes it makes sense to me.

Suppose all the OPEC nations got up in front of the TV cameras and said "Citizens of Earth, We have bad news: starting in 2010, we will no longer be able to sustain our current oil output of 30 million barrels per day. It will fall to 28 mbpd in 2011, and by 2015 it will fall to 20mbpd, and that oil will be costing us $20/barrel to pump out of the ground."

What do you think would be the world's response to a press conference like that?

[Strelnikov_]

28. I Can Guess At The American Response

Run out and fill up the car and any available gas cans.

Lines blocks long as the panic ensues.

Calls to nuke em and take our oil back from even the non-Reich Wing demographic.

[Nordmadr]

29. Panic and hording, plain and simple. N/T

[aztc]

31. I don't get it

How would it help OPEC to lie about this?

They say 'we are cutting production to keep prices from falling too low' and yet some still insist the spigget will run dry in short order, catching us all unawares. It just don't add up man!

Meanwhile, the 'it's too late anyway' attitude gathers a crowd...

[phantom power]

35. That's what they say, but what if...

they're cutting production because they know they're about to start running out? Or maybe they're starting to run out already, and they're selling their own "strategic reserves?"

That isn't completely idle speculation. The Saudis are maintaining their current production rate by pumping their wells full of sea-water to keep them pressurized. It allows them to keep pumping it out fast, but it will also cause their deposits to dry up extra fast when the oil runs out. Not a nice, slow reduction in supply. A crash.

At any rate, lying to the world about such a predicament would help OPEC because they benefit from stable geopolitics. A worldwide announcement that the world's largest oil exporting countries are running out of oil would have god-only-knows-what kind of destabilizing effects.

Instability is bad for any business. Makes it hard to predict your market. Tell people that your supply of product is drying up, and they're liable to do anything. Especially if they're addicted to your product. We've already invaded Iraq as a thinly-disguised attempt to keep our middle-eastern oil supplies secure. And that was just BushCo's version of "planning ahead." Who knows what crazy shit we might pull if we get really panicked?

[aztc]

43. I hope you think this through

It seems you are too bright to fall for obscure conspiracy theories with no basis in fact.

To be clear, it is my view that there is a crisis at hand, and addiction to cheap petroleum is at the root of it. Notice I used the word 'cheap' - petroleum is not evil, but gluttony is, and that is the real problem.

I just don't think these guys have a reason to lie when they say they are cutting production to keep prices high, if anything I would think they they would deny it, rather than confirm it as the article seems to indicate.

[phantom power]

45. I can explain further.

The world's economy was basically running smoothly at $20/barrel, which as we all know was just a few years ago. Now, OPEC is highly motivated to keep oil prices in that range for at least a couple reasons. Reason (1) is that OPEC doesn't benefit from an unstable geopolitical climate, and the last couple years of spiking oil prices are most definitely destabilizing. Reason (2) is that when oil is trading at $60/barrel, everybody begins to start looking around for oil alternatives. Or, at the very least OPEC alternatives (like, say, an invation of Iraq. Or drilling ANWR, or FT fuels, or oil shale, yada yada...)

And let's remember, that allegedly OPEC was making more money than God even when oil was trading at $20/barrel, because it only costs them (allegedly) around $4/barrel to extract. So, raising the price to $60/barrel isn't a good business decision for them. The consequences aren't worth the additional money. They're already got plenty of money.

So, when OPEC says "We're reducing production to keep oil prices at $60/barrel," that tells me something is forcing their hand, because if they could increase their production enough to drive down the price well below $60/barrel, they would do it.

Now, I'm not exactly sure what's forcing their hand, but there's a pretty short list of reasonable possibilities.

1) World demand is increasing so fast that they just can't increase their production enough.
2) In reality, it's now costing them more than $4/barrel to extract.
3) In reality, they can't any longer pump the oil out as fast as they'd like because it's running out.
4) Their own projections tell them that it's going to start running out in a relatively short time. As in 5-10 years. And their supply will run out abruptly, if they don't control their own output rate, even if it means the price is higher than they'd prefer.

Any of these four possibilities is essentially a minor variation on "Peak Oil."

So, my reasoning (such as it is) tells me that OPEC is at or near peak oil. And my knowledge of business and human nature tells me that yes, they are extremely motivated to lie about it for as long as possible. I suppose that does constitute a conspiracy theory. But humans engage in conspiracies all the time. Governments and cartels engage in conspiracy as a matter of standard operating procedure.

[aztc]

52. It's a theory

Once again, we will have to agree to disagree. Not about peak oil, that is certainly real enough, but about what can be done about it. Using less energy per person is the only option, and we can do it easy or hard, but we will at some point use less energy on a per capita basis, no matter how hard headed we are about hanging on to bad habits.

[rustydad]

64. Less and less

Less energy per person and LESS persons will come to pass, one way or another. Bob

[Bru]

51. OPEC countries have lied in the past

They have artificially inflated their proven reserves in order to put more of their oil in the market. Now they need to paint a rosy picture to keep shareholders/buyers happy.

[Strelnikov_]

8. Well Hot Damn, Margo. Cancel That Prius Order, Cause . .

We're Buyin' A Hummer!!

[aztc]

11. Individual consumers have direct control over this price

Consume less and the price will drop. Why is this so hard for folks to accept? Why do so many insist on giving away their power of choice?

Again:

Individual consumers have direct control over this price with their right foot and transportation choices chief among a variety of behaviors that could be modified.

[phantom power]

13. The more interesting questions are...

1) How much less can be consumed?
2) What will be the impact on the economy?

In real life, economics is not frictionless. Are you familiar with the concept of "inelastic demand?"

[aztc]

14. Military Industrial Complex (MIC)

This economy is entirely dependent on the MIC, and the Consumer CONfidence Index drives it all...remember what the former Yale cheerleader said after 9/11 - 'go out and consume! fly somewhere!'

It appears most have obeyed, right & left, as consumption is at record levels.

[phantom power]

19. We have surely organized our economy around consumption.

I think there is general agreement (in this forum) that the consumer economy is coming to an end. I think that the hot topic of discussion is what will replace it. To what extent will we be able to navigate the coming changes on our terms? Will civilization simply collapse, a la Kunstler? Will we manage to save some core of our economy by putting in place alternative energy sources? (and if so, what will they be? what should they be?) How will the coming climate chaos affect our attempts to adapt? Will billions face starvation? Will millions of people currently employed in high-tech/white-collar jobs end up as farmers? Agricultural serfs? New Hoovervilles?

[aztc]

21. And what will we do with the mercenaries if peace breaks out

If world wide peace broke out, what would we do with all the 'professional' military personnel, equipment and systems? What about the defense industries that employ millions of consumers? Where will they work instead?

While I don't have all the answers, I definitely have some real solutions to offer for each person to implement in their daily lives right now:

http://Drive55.org & http://PeaceTraintoDC.com

On the 'big picture' stage I offer http://fuelandfiber.com (Hemp 4 NRG) http://fuelandfiber.com/Athena/ (Energy Policy) and http://timcastleman.com/sst/ (Sacramento Solar Train)

An agrarian society with real relationship to the land would use energy and technology, but in moderation and never to impress. For a good read see Wendell Berry (Citizenship Papers).

[rustydad]

65. Well.......

.........there are many possibilities for the outcome. But as complex as our civilization has become the likely outcome seems to be total collapse. In electronics it is called "cascading", that is when one component goes it triggers the overload of all components right up the line. Nothing left but smoking ruins. Such is modern industrial society. In the end we will be a planet of a billion humans +/- living by wits and cunning, scavenging off the remains of this culture and hunting and gathering. Perhaps some small agriculture where good soil survives. Next round of technology? Perhaps in a thousand years. Sad? Yes but on a clear night the endless stars give us perspective. We are insignificant. Bob

[Bru]

48. In September we found out just how inelastic oil demand is

There were some optimistic reports of conservation, e.g. increased bus ridership, but overall people just bit the bullet and continued buying gas as if nothing had happened.

Btw, I agree with your assessments of OPEC's situation. I think you are more saying what IS the case, and aztc is saying what SHOULD be the case (i.e. us consuming less).

[philb]

36. At the minimum there is an extreme imbalance in supply

countries like the U.S. that have been using so much have their own supplies declining,
and are running increasing and unprecedented trade balances trying to maintain their
unreasonable patterns of misuse.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 24 Oct 2005 at 1:00 PM GMT is:
$ 8,007,251,109,555 (over $ 8 trillion)
The estimated population of the United States is 297,514,000 so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,914.

For the average family of 4 the share is $104,000.
The average family’s annual interest on national debt is $5,200.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of$ 1.62 billion per day since September 30, 2004!

Additionally the U.S. annual trade deficit for 2004 was over $500, 000,000,000 ($500 billion)
The major factor in this is the growing U.S. imports of energy(oil, coal, natural gas) and the price increases for these. This represents a massive outflow of capital from the U.S. economy,
making us collectively poorer, and according to the International Monetary Fund(IMF) threatening collapse of the world economy

[Dogmudgeon]

37. I'm just a tad confused here

First comes the declaration that there is no "Peak Oil" (coming from OPEC, natch). Then, we should all get involved with things like "Drive 55" and "Peace Train" and Hemp Oil. Which may be very good educational PR campaigns (like Earth Day was/is), but are utterly insufficient to reduce energy consumption and/or dependence on their own. The first step can't be the only step. For instance, the room I'm writing this in is heated to 58F. No, not 68F, but 58F. Heating gas is at $15 per MCF; at $150 per MCF, many of us will simply do without. On the other hand, I need my car, or something like it. I used to walk, hike, and bike, but then I lost my left inner ear, which ended the biking; and injured my feet, which ended the walking and hiking. When the price of gasoline zooms upward, I will be "well and truly fuck'd". Yet, other people will not. When will enough of us understand how we are ALL in the path of that bulldozer?

And, of course, most of us know that the oil will not just "run out". The economics of energy recovery and pricing are dynamic. "Peak Oil" is the point where our ability to recover oil will decline; it is a loosey-goosey point that depends on hundreds of variables, but to the best of our ability to estimate those variables, we are close to that point now, or we may have just passed it. And then, at a somewhat later point, it will become more expensive to pump oil out of the ground than to use non-petroleum energy sources. The mass of the oil and the force of gravity will interact to make petroleum a "boutique fuel", pumped for specific purposes at high prices for production and sale alike.

But the telling point is the misunderstanding of end-of-the-world scenarios. Many people have mentioned them, and scoffed, as if our continued survival means that we are invincible. The reason for presenting EOTW scenarios is simple: they indicate the negative outcomes we wish to avoid. This is a major factor in all human decisions. For example, if you are avoiding particular "issues" with your significant other, the outcome may be splitsville, major financial loss, depression, and loneliness.

By avoiding our environmental and energy issues, the outcome may be a major die-off. This isn't a sci-fi fantasy, but a very probable outcome of a crash of the world economy -- a crash instigated by a too-large energy gap in supply and demand, or climate changes that become so large that food becomes impossible to produce for most people without access to hydroponic equipment.

None of us here want to experience, or be part of, the deaths of five billion or more people. But it's also very likely to happen if "we" -- our leaders -- continue to sleepwalk.

The ultracynic will look back and say, "There was no die-off, nyah nyah!" but that misses the point. Disaster will be avoided in proportion to the seriousness with which we consider it. Mutual terror of a major, unconstrained nuclear exchange kept the USA and the USSR from even moderate military dust-ups, and eventually even reduced the small proxy wars (e.g., Vietnam). Unfortunately, this brand of ultracynicism is rampant among the hipsters, for whom The Day After and On The Beach are "Nukeporn"; and snuff and torture films are "Tribal Erotica".

Is there such a thing as the "right point of view"? Well, not as a single point of view, but as a general orientation, yes. If we're really serious about survival, we don't need to share the same ideas for solutions -- the "Nuke v. Green" (pseudo-)debate is the archetype -- but only the same ideas about the value of our civilization and our planet, and the understanding that The Big Solution is not likely to be perfect, clean, risk-free or emotionally satisfying to any of us.

And the fabled Die-Off? I've written several times about this. Our super-complex human society continues by reliance on the proverbial combination of bailing wire, duct tape, old cigar boxes, and spit. This has been recognized since before World War Two, by paleo-conservatives such as Pitirim Sorokin and Ludwig von Mises and renegade leftists like Paul Goodman and Paul Ehrlich. They (and others) pushed us to consider the consequences, and by doing so, we avoided their dystopian predictions.

We're not so wonderful that we have a self-operating, Plug-n-Play civilization. We're abandoning our responsibilities and letting things slide. (By "we", I mean our wonderful "leaders" from Bush to House Saud to the EEC to the Islamic Republic of Iran and back again.) My own "prediction" is that we will avoid a Die-Off by blundering our way toward greater responsibility for our planet. But it won't be easy or clean or direct -- it will be as messy and stupid as human history often is. The specter of a Die-Off -- nuclear, climatic, energy/finance, or from exotic causes like supervolcanoes or comet impacts -- will always be there, a possibility that will keep us focused on survival and the improvement of our physical, intellectual, and moral worlds.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. The survival part has usually been easy; it's the improvement part that has been difficult.

--p!

[phantom power]

38. Dude, 58? I'm not worthy.

[Dogmudgeon]

39. Adventures in Poverty

My mom is a military widow and she's terrified she'll die broke very soon. She's not all that bad off, but is paranoid, and with good reason. My Dad, who was a CWO (Chief Warrant Officer) in the Army, invested heavily in military life insurance and investments, but when he died in 1996, the value of those investments had been reduced by Reaganista fiat to approximately $18,000 (he said he had invested over $200k, but I never personally saw the records). I myself am not working, coming out of a 5-year episode of bad health that hit a few months after my programming job went to Asia. (I doubt whether I'll be able to work in programming again without at least two years of full-time retraining -- I might as well get a Master's degree in Psych and work in public (mental) health, which I originally trained for.)

So we have made it our "hobby" to keep the place as cool as we can deal with in the winter, and to economize to the point where it has become a mania. We live in an apartment and the cost of gas heat has tripled in the last four years. The cost of electricity has been stable, but we expect it to start rising soon. It is not too bad for me, and I've experimented with keeping the temperature in the low-50s even while wearing shorts and a t-shirt. It is not all that bad if you're even a little active, but it does require getting used to!

You yourself may have no choice about winter heating in a decade or so if the Peak Oil scenarios are accurate. But over the course of ten years, a lot of people can install a lot of off-grid energy gear. They might not generate enough energy to power our world, but they should be able to cover most residential needs. I don't know where you are in your life, but if you're under 50 and own your own place, you probably have more than enough time and ability to make the technological changes when you have to. But even older folks can do quite a bit -- in some communities, the older generation may be the one with the knowlege to help people re-adjust to a lower-tech lifestyle.

As soon as I'm "on my feet" again, I'll be saving up for a house. At least with a house, I can insulate it and equip it for off-grid operation to my heart's content. But my recent compulsory experience with abject poverty has made me wonder how the "wretched of the Earth" are going to handle things. I am not optimistic. As I wrote above, it is likely that we will avoid a full-scale die-off, simply because we'll haul ass when the hit hits the fan, but the cost could be quite high; too high for the poor to pay.

--p!

[phantom power]

40. It's a bit different here in Phoenix.

We keep our thermostat around 66 this time of year, but that's a pretty typical daytime high in december. Even at night, the furnace doesn't go on very much. On the other hand, our electric bill for August was over $300.

When I lived in Michigan, I recall one fine spring day when it was 35F, and I was driving around with the windows rolled down since it felt so nice. These days anything cooler than 70F seems kind of chilly. I've gone native.

[Bru]

50. Natural Gas woes

Last year, my last year of college in St. Paul, Minnesota, my roommate and I kept our house at just above 55 and insulated all the windows, yet STILL our monthly gas bill was $300. And that was LAST winter, before prices rose even more. This year the succeding residents of the house don't even have insulation up!

[aztc]

42. Far more than 'good educational PR campaigns (like Earth Day was/is)'

I agree we are in a deep crisis right now and I am talking about drastic actions to reduce consumption by up to 50% right now, not PR campaigns, and you dismiss these real solutions as 'utterly insufficient' which indicates you either don't like the solutions or don't have enough information to know. In either case, you are clearly in the majority.

http://Drive55.org & http://PeaceTraintoDC.com

How do you feel about grounding commercial jets, restoring the national 55 mph speed limit and enforcing existing speed limits, and truly enforcing laws that give pedestrians the right of way?

[Bru]

49. Well said!

Like an archer who hits a distant target by aiming higher than it, we need to be more urgent than is necessary in our goals so the actualization of those goals, when it falls short, will fall right on the acceptable solution.

[aztc]

44. EIA Boosts its Long-Term Projections for Oil Costs

World oil prices are expected to drop over the next ten years, but they'll be back up to near today's levels by 2025, according to a report released Monday by DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA's latest "Annual Energy Outlook" projects oil prices falling to $47 per barrel in 2014, but rising to $54 per barrel in 2025. That's $21 per barrel higher than the EIA was projecting a year ago. According to EIA, those higher prices will stimulate a greater use of ethanol and biodiesel, as well as technologies to convert coal into liquid fuels. The high prices also reduce demand, and in the new scenario, oil imports supply 60 percent of U.S. petroleum demand in 2025, down from the 68 percent projected in last year's report.

The EIA also anticipates that higher oil and natural gas prices will spur an increased use of coal and nuclear power. The new report projects a 64 percent increase in coal consumption by 2030 along with the addition of 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear power plants. On the other hand, imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) are expected to grow to 4.1 trillion cubic feet in 2025, down significantly from the 6.4 trillion cubic feet projected last year. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use are projected to increase at an average annual rate of 1.2 percent between 2004 and 2030, down from the 1.5 percent growth projected last year. And the carbon intensity of the economy, measured as energy-related carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of gross domestic product, is projected to decline at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent per year from 2004 through 2030.

See the EIA press release and the Annual Energy Outlook.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press265.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[philb]

55. This was a short term analysis; for this year only

The U.S. DOE EIA and International IEA released longer term reports about the same time
that paint a different picture.

Prices not likely to come down significantly over the next 10 years, with periodic spikes due
to such as hurricanes, winter cold weather; middle east or other large oil supplier interruptions, etc.

And the desire by developing countries, especially in Asia and South America to more fully develop energy
infrastructure and energy use colliding with the problems of global warming, global mercury pollution,
shortages in developed countries like U.S. and Japan that have a big energy apetite mean there will be
major issues to deal with.

[aztc]

59. Volatile market infested with 'Sharp' operators

There's gold in them there hills, Black Gold, and the waters are infested with 'Sharp' operators willing to do whatever it takes to increase their power.

My point all along here is that whenever the addicted fill up their tanks or buy a jet airline ticket these actions by default support the tyrants. So when the brutal dictators jack up the price what do Americans do? Whine, hoard and line up at the pumps and ticket counters, surrendering all semblance to the free country I was promised.

[aztc]

66. California gasoline production nears 1 million barrels a day

Sacramento - Production of reformulated gasoline for use in California
improved slightly -- 0.9 percent -- from the previous week but was 4.4
percent less than at this time last year, according to the Weekly Fuels
Watch Report issued today by the California Energy Commission.

Production of reformulated gasoline in California refineries averaged
997,571 barrels a day for the week ending December 16, 2005. Inventories
of reformulated gasoline are down 4.3 percent when compared to the
previous week and are 12.7 percent below last year's levels.

Diesel production and diesel inventories are at levels well above any
reached in the past five years. Diesel production rose 4.1 percent from
the previous week and was 9.7 percent better than at this time last year.
Inventories of CARB diesel rose by 7.5 percent over the week and were up
21.1 percent from this time last year.

The entire Weekly Fuels Watch Report can be seen on the Energy
Commission's Web site at

http://www.energy.ca.gov/database/fore

For Immediate Release: December 21, 2005
Media Contact: Rob Schlichting - 916-654-4989

# # #