Are we really runnig out of oil?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Hubbert (and proponents of his theory) have predicted global peaks
>in 1989, 1995, 2000 and 2005. They seem to keep moving the goal
> posts.

M. King Hubbert predicted that the US oil production would peak in the 1970's. He was right. He predicted that world oil peak would come "in about a half a century" - which would put the peak around 2020. Oddly, similar to what Mark's paper claims.

Since he died in 1989, I find your belief that he predicted peak oil occurring in 1995, then 2000, then 2005 pretty funny. Did he come back from the grave for these pronouncements? Or was it more a spirit-medium thing?

You should work on your reading comprehension. You seemed to miss where I referenced "proponents of his theory".

Anyhow, I wasn't aware that future predictions are only valid if you're alive when those dates pass.

In 1974 Hubbert predicted the peak would come in 1995.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

On a tangential issue, why are oil prices not rising? The election was eight days ago.

I don't know about you but gasoline in my area has gone up ~0.10-0.15 since last week.

[AdD 1]

A trillion barrels left to be discovered? Whatever, that's bullshit, look at the annual oil discovery data since it peaked in the sixties, even though price has been increasing, oil discovery has trended sharply downwards. As for 1.9 trillion in unconventional, yes, it is there, but it cannot be extracted quickly or cheaply enough to offset declinining conventional production. Even if the peak came in 2030, we would have to start serious preparations RIGHT NOW according to the Hirsh Report to mitigate the unpleasant civilization ending effects of PO.

Life is ez
On the dz
Every jumper's dream
3 rigs and an airstream

[billvon 2,991]

>You seemed to miss where I referenced "proponents of his theory".

Ah. Had you said "Hubbert OR proponents of his theory" then your statement would have made a bit more sense. Hubbert was dead before your first predicted date came to pass; hard to imagine him "moving the goalposts" from the grave.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>You seemed to miss where I referenced "proponents of his theory".

Ah. Had you said "Hubbert OR proponents of his theory" then your statement would have made a bit more sense. Hubbert was dead before your first predicted date came to pass; hard to imagine him "moving the goalposts" from the grave.

How pedantic.

Your assertion that he couldn't change his forecast at any time prior to his death seems pretty lame.

I notice you didn't address his 1995 prediction.

[billvon 2,991]

> Even if the peak came in 2030, we would have to start serious
> preparations RIGHT NOW according to the Hirsh Report to mitigate
> the unpleasant civilization ending effects of PO.

Yep. But when such measures are proposed, they are dismissed as fantasy, ridiculed as unneccesary, and even attacked as a means for our enemies to destroy the USA.

[wmw999 2,447]

From Wikipedia (not a perfect source, but I'm on my lunch hour):

Quote

In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 "if current trends continue" [4]. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy efficient cars[5], the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating[6], etc), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s (see chart on right). The shift to reduced consumption in these areas meant that the projection assumptions were not realized and, hence, oil production did not peak in 1995.

If the underlying assumption becomes invalid (i.e. "current trends" in usage), then the estimate becomes invalid.

Is there a finite amount of oil underground? I think it'd be silly to say anything but "yes." Is it getting more and more expensive to get the oil that we do know about out? Yes. Is it going to come to a sudden end when one day there's plenty and the next it's gone? Of course not.

Would we be smart to conserve, so that we don't get to the point where oil that costs $500/bbl to get out of the earth is worth getting? Personally, I think it is. Because even if it doesn't get there while I'm alive, I'm not the only important person out there.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

On a tangential issue, why are oil prices not rising? The election was eight days ago.

Gas jumped from $1.97 to $2.09 two days after the election in Tulsa.

It's up in IL and IN too.

From what I've seen, prices in IL are up a penny since 11/07 and they are down about three cents in IN. Nationally, prices are up about two cents. What we're talking about is mere noise... nothing more.

My previous point was directed at the conspiracy theorists, who think Exxon et al easily manipulate prices, even claiming the late Summer decline of 80 cents (at the pump) was some kind of inside job.

With one company alone making $40 Billion in profits for the year, I'd say that the oil companies are quite well placed to manipulate gas prices.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

From Wikipedia (not a perfect source, but I'm on my lunch hour):

Quote

In 1974, Hubbert projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 "if current trends continue" [4]. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped (due to the shift to energy efficient cars[5], the shift to electricity and natural gas for heating[6], etc), then rebounded to a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s (see chart on right). The shift to reduced consumption in these areas meant that the projection assumptions were not realized and, hence, oil production did not peak in 1995.

If the underlying assumption becomes invalid (i.e. "current trends" in usage), then the estimate becomes invalid.

Nicely done, Wendy. You consistently bring common sense to these pissing matches. It's so much more attractive than the shallow thinking that is so frequently displayed.

[wmw999 2,447]

You calling me a thread-killer???

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

Not at all. It's just that many posters frequently look for ways to misunderstand another's point or make tangential but totally irrelevant posts, instead of honestly debating an issue.

Your straightforward approach is refreshing... even when I disagree with your position.

[billvon 2,991]

>instead of honestly debating an issue.

When do you think we will run out of oil? (to get back to the "honest debate")

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

I'd say that the oil companies are quite well placed to manipulate gas prices.

And pray tell, via your wisdom and communcation skills, do oil companies manipulate gas prices?

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

When do you think we will run out of oil?

To the century, decade, year, week, day or minute?

We are all engines of karma

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

When do you think we will run out of oil?

I'm not sure we will. But it'll get so expensive that we'll be forced to use other stuff for lighting, heat, transportation, and canopy fabric.

I agree that it's best that the time when it's too expensive comes later instead of sooner.

Eventually the planet will not support human life any more, for whatever reason. Hopefully many millions of years from now; then I won't have to worry too much. But, kind of like the frog who is eventually going to get cooked -- how quickly do you want the water to be heated? We can adapt to and live in increasingly uncomfortable situations. There's a limit, and the longer it takes us to reach that limit, the better. Especially because technology might change that limit.

200 years ago there wasn't a permanent research station on the South Pole.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[NCclimber 0]

I don't know.

Looking at what has happened to crude prices over the last five years (which was when China joined the WTO ), there are some very compelling arguments for curbing our oil consumption and developing alternative energy sources ASAP.

Saudi Arabia says they have a 100 year supply. I don't believe them.

There is a huge deposit of oil shale in western Colorado that could meet all of our petroleum needs for the next century. Unfortunately, the distilling process is an environmental nightmare. Really nasty by-products.

The discussion about what to do seems be driven by two extremist groups - big oil and the environmentalists. Hopefully, cooler heads will eventually drive this train. It ain't gonna fix itself.

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

two extremist groups - big oil and the environmentalists.

Something to consider: if we go with big oil and we're wrong, we'll be very uncomfortable in awhile, and it'll be getting worse.

If we go with the environmentalists and we're wrong, we'll be less comfortable now, but we can go back to the way we were if they're proven wrong.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>I'm not sure we will.

I am certain we never will run out of oil; there will always be a few hundred barrels somewhere if you're willing to dig enough for it. The problem is cheap oil, and it's what the Hubbert Peak is about.

The US Hubbert Peak happened as predicted because there was a ready source to take over for them. Save oil? Why? We'll just get more from overseas.

This time, there won't be any more sources of cheap oil. Which means that oil will get more and more expensive as production stops being able to keep up with demand. This will cause massive price increases, and these price increases will effectively slow down consumption, so that the 'peak' looks more like a plateau than the US peak did.

The problem will be how quickly those price increases come, and whether or not we have alternatives. I strongly believe that the next really big war will be over oil; the rhetoric will accuse the Arabs/Russians/Chinese etc of "economic terrorism." The more alternatives we have, and the faster we increase prices _now_ to lessen the shock of future prices, the less likely that is.

As a side note, our entire military runs on oil. It's not just an economic issue - it's a very real issue of who will be able to run their military in the near future. Again, waiting to convert the JSF to some other form of fuel is best done now, not when we have no more and are contemplating fighting a war over it.

[NCclimber 0]

What makes this so tough is it's a global issue, both environmental and economic.

Adding to Bill's point about rising crude prices - over the last five years worldwide consumption rose 10%. In that same period the price has risen 200%. Last summer's highs were up close to 300% from 11/01.

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

I am certain we never will run out of oil; there will always be a few hundred barrels somewhere if you're willing to dig enough for it. The problem is cheap oil, and it's what the Hubbert Peak is about.

I think we're in violent agreement -- I sure hope you're not countering me. If so, well, I definitely need to go re-read what I wrote to make it clearer.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>I think we're in violent agreement . . .

I think so too! Now cut it out or I shall agree with you a second time!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I'd say that the oil companies are quite well placed to manipulate gas prices.

And pray tell, via your wisdom and communcation skills, do oil companies manipulate gas prices?

How would I know? I simply remarked that they have the wherewithal to do so (contrary to NCC's assertion). Do energy companies play politics and cheat the public? (Hint - think ENRON before responding).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Speaking of missing the point.

[D-rock 0]

Quote

There is a huge deposit of oil shale in western Colorado that could meet all of our petroleum needs for the next century. Unfortunately, the distilling process is an environmental nightmare. Really nasty by-products.

Some people(Shell) are working on more environmentally friendly ways to extract and refine oil shale;I wouldn't completely write it off yet. If we find a way to use oil shale it will only prolong our demise but hey it might mean cheap jumps for the rest of our life time.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

There is a huge deposit of oil shale in western Colorado that could meet all of our petroleum needs for the next century. Unfortunately, the distilling process is an environmental nightmare. Really nasty by-products.

Some people(Shell) are working on more environmentally friendly ways to extract and refine oil shale;I wouldn't completely write it off yet. If we find a way to use oil shale it will only prolong our demise but hey it might mean cheap jumps for the rest of our life time.

I was supposed to start on those projects in 81 til RR pulled the pin on them for whatever reasons

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.