Peak oil latest - yikes

Well, I'm not going to do this often, but somebody who regularly posts informed comments, Dr Clifford Wirth, has written about peak oil on my last post - which was about something else altogether - so he must be rather exercised by it.

The graphs he alludes to are represented below. The first shows a slow decline in global crude oil production currently and then accelerating after December 2010 (click on it to see full size).

The second shows net oil production - because a significant amount of oil is used to extract and refine and deliver oil - a proportion that increases all the time, hence the rapid decline in net production (below).

Wirth points out that declining energy return on energy invested - in other words, the increasing amounts of energy "wasted" in the production of energy - mean that we have much less than "half" of the world's oil deposits left.

I know it's hopelessly optimistic, but a part of me does still think that we may possibly be saved from the worst of climate change by the impending energy shortage (though that of course will put an end to most of us). Any thoughts, anybody?

POSTSCRIPT (July 8): Thanks for your comments, but please keep them polite, or they will probably be deleted.

Comments

[marcus wood]

Yikes indeed. We are sleepwalking into the future.

[so left i am right]

thoughts... oh hell, everything is going to be fine. just keep buying plastic crap, filling up that truck and motor boat and haul ass. crank up the ac, it's really hot these days, and relax. forget about the mortgage, the bills, you health. they've got it all under control...

i've been so optimistic since my well dried up that i've decided to let my garden and orchard fry in the rainless heat of summer and run to walmart twice a day to get my food. they have some amazing pre-processes-double packaged sudo-food items there.

[pjc]

Google around a bit for things like "shale gas", "natural gas inventories", etc. Plenty of natural gas around, and if oil truly does become scarce, a large proportion of industrial/transportation needs can be met with natural gas.

[Steven Page]

I would encourage all of you to go over to the source posts for these graphs...the first is from http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5395 and the second is from http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5500

The term "peak oil" is about flow rates, quality of oil, and net energy return, and is often misrepresented in the media because it is such a complex topic. Learn all you can, then make up your own mind.

[Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.]

Hi John-Paul,

Thanks for posting this.

In addition, the decline in oil supply is steeper for the developed nations, as the oil producing nations use more and more oil domestically and export less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Best regards,

Cliff Wirth

[Chris Shaw]

More please J-P F.

Oil derived liquid fuel has an energy density like no other. Realistically, that fossil sunshine was essentially a free energy source.... something we are inclined to forget when paying for a tankful at the pump.

LNG is not nearly so convenient and will only be a salve when things get tight.

I think the great challenge is to embark upon the infrastructure of tomorrow's civilisation, using what remains of this one's lucky charm of free oil energy.

If we don't choose those changes for ourselves, then Nature will do it for us - and we might not like the outcome.

[Clifford J. Wirth, Ph.D.]

Hi PJC,

Oil is used to produce natural gas and gas from shale. So as the price of oil goes up, so will the price of natural and shale gas. More important, even the optimistic U.S. Energy Information Agency concludes that the conversion of the transportation system to natural/shale gas is expensive and will not happen. Such investments will become more expensive as the price of oil increases.

[Donnie Alexander]

We are so entrenched in the fossil fuel paradigm that we tend to have little hope that a new energy paradigm, born of innovation and new technology, will arise in time to prevent our human progress from sliding back into the dark ages. Please, take heart. I promise you there is every reason to be hopeful and optimistic about our energy future without fossil fuels. There is new technology, complete and ready to go to work, political barriers and the present energy moguls notwithstanding.

[shaun]

Not this peak oil crap again.

[bob]

shaun your a retard

[SP]

On the graph you show the ever optimistic IEA "projection" which unfailingly always points up. The only difference there has ever been is the degree to which it always points up.
Back in 04 their line merely extrapolated the preceding years and showed massive growth. The reality revealed in this plot was a leveling.
And now? Again a mere extrapolation of the current flat production (with an optimistic late upswing) even as this graph trends downward. I wonder if all the IEA knows is how to fit "trendline" with excel! Their theme song must be "The only way is up".

Gas is not going to be the panacea some above envision.

As Chris said, it's flow not absolute amounts.

Sure, some parts of the world have large reservoirs of gas... are they near you? How does it get to you... or is it like cows, milk and cartons? In your thinking does gas just come from the pipe in the wall?

[J. Cargill]

Have a look at this book. It is quite revealing: http://www.energy-future.com/

[Brecon Quaddy]

Peak oil will start impacting lifestyles in the UK in the next few years. For cost/availability reasons, oil and gas supplies will be increasingly allocated to essential uses - e.g. food and industrial production, distribution and building and operating public transport infrastructure. Whether the allocation is done by market pricing or government edict doesn't matter. It will happen from 2012-2015 onwards.

Think about where you live and work and how much debt you're carrying. There will be more deflation in the prices of many asset classes, particularly cars and houses but there will be high inflation in the cost of food, heating and transport. Pay no attention to the 'back to the dark ages' stuff. It will be more like going back to the 40s or 50s to start with. That will feel bad enough to the present generation.

This will be much more painful than it would have been had the world changed course 30 years ago. But it's too late to change history. At least people still have a few years in which to do what they can to prepare individually.

Google "The Transition Handbook" for ideas. And "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" if you really believe that wind/solar/nuclear are simply going to roll over the horizon in a couple of years' time to take over from fossil fuels.

[James C]

Peak oil is a myth. We've consumed less that 30% of global oil reserves, that would indicate that there's 70% still available - it just takes more effort to get it. And incidentally we have enough coal to last at least another 200 years.

So running around peddling myths is not going to change behaviour, it just leads to panic behaviour - the peaks in oil prices last year were not due to the oil running out, they were caused in part by the realisation that 1st generation biofuels were not the silver bullet they were claimed to be; in part by the daily global demand temporarily exceeding that daily global supply; and in part by the market buying and holding stocks which pushed the price up.

Our little problem will be solved by the technoloical innovation that results in the development of a viable diversity of energy supplies and by changes in behaviour by everyone.

[J]

When Russia starts to pump oil from under the North Pole (yes, you read that correctly, Russia has claimed that source as its own and nobody will have the nerve to oppose it) the oil reserves will increase considerably. It will support our economy, but unfortunately won't help much with the environment. Incidentally, Russia could become the place to be living in twenty years time, probably with the highest standard of living anywhere.

[Nick]

Does the author of this article get paid by an oil company for writing this piece of scaremongering claptrap? It amazes me everytime I read that oil is running out, oil will be two dollars a litre next month etc. All tactics by the oil companies to inflate the prices. By the way if it takes, as one company claims, two barrels of oil to find and refine one barrel of oil how do they make this happen? A little bit of Paul Daniels magic, or even David Blaine? No it is because they want you to part with your money to buy their product at the exorbitant price that they see fit to charge.

[Ian Rogers]

If we put a huge (really huge) solar power array into all the world's deserts, then we're sorted for Electricity (subject to technical and political difficulties), and for Desalinated Water, too.

But whence do we replace all the oil-derived fertilisers which go towards making so many of our crops?

And is there enough lithium in the world, for all the car batteries which you want?

We have a problem; it is not "obviously" terminal, but it is not good.

Will "Peak Oil" save us from Global Warming, "despite ourselves"?
- Not necessarily!

We also seem to be "losing" all the bees; which is a bit serious, in its own right. And "the fish problem" is getting worse, daily.

- Sorry for cheering you up!

But really, it is not a pretty picture.

[Steve Lawson]

remember this, for every gallon of fuel burnt, we destroy 14700 gallons of air!

[Andras]

There are three subjects that I cannot be more confused and suspicious about - the existence of God, climate change and our future with or without oil. Perhaps, none of us can understand the extent of the difficulties and the compromises that the question imposes. I see arguments pro and cons and I most arguments feel simplistic and biased. I admit that as an ordinary member of the public (with some interest in business), I cannot see the whole mechanism of how fossil fuel influences our lives. I accept that there is no easy solution.

It might be that western countries exploit the world's most important energy source by simply buying it at a price and quantity that will make availability for future generations and developing countries an issue. In that sense, producers could still go further in protecting their interests. Meanwhile, our own standard of living and to a certain degree, existence depends upon a resource that can be manipulated by a handful of countries.

About oil, since I remember, we were told to worry as it would not last forever. 2010, 2020, 2040... these are some of the predictions, where we would run out of oil. Meanwhile, BP claims to have increased its reserves every year in the last number of years. Also, previously unimaginable technology becomes available and viable. If production at the price of 100 USD/barrel is not economic, it doesn't mean that in a few years, it will be the same even at a lower price level. National and private oil companies might play tricks to drive up prices, but maintaining a culture of a quickly depleting resource damages shareholders' value and national prospects, so I am not convinced that it is always their interest to live up to the public's imagination about them.

Furthermore, many countries were able to adapt towards less natural oil usage without putting considerable strain on their agriculture. Brazil would be an example, where alcohol became a major alternative to fossil fuel.

For me, even at above a pound, petrol seems to be a cheap source of energy, so we keep wasting it. Without taking real ecological damage into account and being forced to pay for it, our consumption will not plummet. Newer economical cars are fine (although, as they are expensive, not for the poor), but they will not solve the problem on their own. In fact, it seems a bit odd that we expect industrial production to bail us out from the dependency of modern industry.

I think, the best thing in this case would be to stop panicking and let governments do what they should have done a long time ago - finding a better balance between forcing industry to cut back consumption as long as it is relatively painless for the economy. After all, using up cheap resources is a convenient way to keep others away from the leading table. Not moral and sophisticated, but simple and relatively cost effective.

I can imagine that no government see that these measures would increase their popularity, but developing the ability to move away from fossil fuel, surely must have a benefit in the long term. In fact, it might become a main competitive advantage, regardless of how cheap and available oil is. The political climate in the major oil producing countries will not change greatly and there is so much uncertainty surrounding the issue that frugal usage and the ever-debated possibility of running out in some time in the future will not make us get off from the black stuff. We all are junkies. Whether oil is closer to heroin or chocolate, I'm not sure

[Gavin]

These are the most disturbing charts I have ever seen. If they are accurate then the impact that they will have on our lives cannot be over stated.

The Hirsh report in 2005 says that mitigation without severe disruption to economic life requires 20 years of mitigation in advance of the peak, if we had to start now this would work for a peak in 2030. It also says that a 10 year mitigation effort with moderate effects is possible with " extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers".

Yet this analysis claims that the peak has already happened, with close to zero mitigation haven taken place. Its the Hirsch reports worst case scenario.

We are sleepwalking into disaster.

[Steve Wright]

People have failed to mention the important use of oil in plastics (for computers, hospital equipment, bank cards and the like).

Imagine if we could not find a substitute raw material to manufacture computers. We waste so much oil on useless purposes such as supermarket packaging we are surely heading for an 'oil crunch'. People also forget that oil is used in the manufacture and transportation of renewable energy products such as wind turbines so we still have a long long way to go yet!

[adam]

Bush was right. We should get out of oil - it will run out.

[Melanie]

All we ever get told on this subject is the line being pushed by green pressure groups. So what do the reservoir engineers say?

I remember reading a while back that reservoir engineers were saying current technology is extracting only the easiest 10% from the oil reservoirs. OK, it will run out some time in the distant future but, as I understand it, the near / medium term problem isn't that there isn't enough oil - its that it will become increasingly difficult (and expensive) to extract it.

Yes, its something of an inconvenient truth that we can't live without it (many people, quite literally!) but, when the time comes, I suspect that mankind will find a way. We always have before. Is now the time to find alternatives? Well, we certainly should be at least making a start.

There's a huge list of primary "products" to be replaced, including plastics and pharmaceuticals, and energy, of course.

Can't easily replace most of these but, for energy, Fusion power anyone? This is about the only game in town that isn't nuclear but I'm not holding out much hope. Many of us can remember the promise that Nuclear would deliver "electricity too cheap to bother billing for"...

It was only 4 decades ago that no-one had central heating and few could afford a car. I remember those days but suspect we are on the cusp of returning to them and middle-agers like me will look back on the days when we were warm in our homes and could pop out in our cars as the golden years.

[mr . looked at it an laughed]

funnily you forget to mention that russia has been finding new oil for 30 yrs , 110 new wells in the last decade . Also the russian ukranian deep abbysal oil theory , ( as opposed to "fossil fuel " ( haha ) suggests it will never run out as the earth makes more of it all the time . This hoax is well past its sell by date , next.
Ps before oil was big , we used hemp oil , a natural renewable fuel . hemp locks up 4 times more carbon than rain forest in a yearly growing cycle , you can also make all the plastics you want from hemp , an its biodegradeable . many solutions to a non problem :-))

[laughed some more]

Also ( its a badly kept secret shhh) but of the coast of alaska ( purdoe bay ( i think its called ) theve found two oil fields , that are each bigger that the Quatar field in Saudi .
( strategic military resource is why its hush )
( the largest fields to date ). And now russia is the largest oil producer in the world , and still finding more every year , in fact there is more oil available today than ever in history . We are running in to it rather than out of it .

[ark]

"Also ( its a badly kept secret shhh) but of the coast of alaska ( purdoe bay ( i think its called ) theve found two oil fields , that are each bigger that the Quatar field in Saudi . "

You need to get your facts right before posting.The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968 and began pumping oil in 1977. Production peaked at 1.5 million barrels per day in 1998 .In 2005 production had fallen to 943,000 barrels per day. Every single US oil field is in decline. To confirm this you only need to read the annual reports from the oil companies to see how many barrels they have produced and then replaced with new finds. Shell for instance in 2008 could only manage to replace 10% of their production with new reserves.

[Mr giggles]

Alas , trusting oil company figures is not my strong point , . There is a tax issue , on reserves, so there best understated, often, interestingly , Venezuala , has found 30% more oil for national reserves in the past couple of years , and other south american countries , also have 20% plus increases , ( amazon delta for instance ) yes the USA , ran out in the 60s/70s , an Britain has been in decline since the 1990s , but everyone else is finding more and more . The anglo american cartel is declining , and the fact that the dollar is tied to the price of oil , promotes the disinformation on the subject .The fact that oil is plentyfull would weaken the already strained dollar , I myself am no fan of oil , but facts ,an there are plenty more , do not support " peak oil ".The arguement is tainted by the " big oil " and " big pharma " commercial interests .
Mr Dupont who had hemp made illegal , to suppress competition to his recent oil purchases , ( and investment into nylon ) has distorted the world economy , large scale hemp production would easily out perform the " oil / pharma " markets and also knock wood pulp / forestry for 6 .Industrial profits ( short term ) prevent many better solutions ever getting a look in .
As an aside , non of the IPCC forcasts or models predicted a ten years decline in global temperatures ( which we have just had ) so what / who is wrong ? I say that based on imperical data , the IPCC have had a zero % success rate at predictions so far . My only conclusion is that " global warming " is a hoax / fraud , just to impliment a " global carbon tax " . Its all just money and hot air . No evidence exists to support it . Observational evidence contradicts the gloom and doom forcasts of the " the future , we know it " brigade . Forcasting the future is not science , its guessing . ( who gains ) often exposes why these rumours are started .

[Chris Shaw, Australia]

What a bunch of cornucopians we have all become. I am 62 years old and was employed by the mining industry to extract minerals from ores. Give me the soil from your window-box and I can extract the copper - but that won't be sufficient to build you the electric car of tomorrow.

Over centuries, we have been forced to move on from easy, rich, concentrated mineral deposits towards bigger but more diffuse ones. In their turn, all of the essential chemical and processing inputs have suffered from the same fate as they too are refined from more diffuse sources.

All of these inputs require energy. Small wonder then, that our energy requirements are increasing exponentially. They will continue to do so, even if we manage to abandon the impossible god of eternal growth.

Trying to understand this through the distorting lens of economics is a guarantee of a one-way trip to the nuthouse.

It took me far too long to wake up. After all, I have known nothing but growth and abundance for my entire lifetime. The situation that I always imagined would plague future generations turns out to be here and now.

It's my bag - I have to wear it!

[Mr non facts dont count]

The figures on the graphs are all controled by men ? . Have the figures taken into account the interuption caused by war in Iraq ? Net oil production , is not related to oil reserves . Global crude production is not related to reserves , because companies and cartels decide to manipulate prices by decreasing supply , you cannot extrapolate that resourse is declining from it .The global reccesion will mean less oil is needed / produced , thus production will fall some more , this is irrelavent to what is actually there . The term " peak oil " referres to " the amount of oil on the planet " something that nobody actually knows . There is no independant verification of known reserves .
Oil companies have to pay tax on oil when they find it , so non of them declare what they have actually found , they all understate it , and then later say " oh its a bit more than we thought " , saving themselves millions in tax duty , and spreading the cost of paying it .
So selective , non relevant data , backing up a claim that someone knows what is going to happen in the future , could have been written by the IPCC , I would suggest Dr Clifford Wirth , has an agenda , like the IPCC , facts seem to be in short supply .
Gossip and opinion used to scare people , dare I say propoganda and hype . ( who gains ? )

[pamela]

Actually that's a good thing ! The world can start using hemp for fuel.Rudolph Diesel and Henry Ford used hemp for fuel.The Diesel engine was designed to run on agricultural waste,and inedible seed oils.Ford grew his own fuel,and made a car out of hemp.
Not using petroleum for fuel will end the wars and stop the pollution.Petroleum is soooo 20th Century.You can see Fords hemp car here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGZEMwMx2vk

[Gavin]

Peak oil is not about reserve size, its about flow rates. Its not about the total amount of oil, its about the amount available on any given day, which in turn affects the oil price and hence economic activity.

In fact, peak oilers have no problem with taking reserve sizes from say, the BP statistical review. The problem is that BP Execs say that "we have 42 years of production at current rates", when there is no way we will continue to produce at current rates.

As the BP Execs know full well, oil fields peak and go into decline, as do regions and countries. The UK North fields peaked in 1999.

Sooner or later, the whole thing has to happen to the entire worlds fields, regardless of what discoveries are made.

I've spent the past few years believing that this will happen sometime after 2020, and that the situation was manageable.

This analysis, by credible geoligists, says that it has already happened, implying that advance mitigation is not possible. This is why I am so freaked out by these charts.

[Cinquero]

There is a nice way to look at all of this:

surplus energy.

During decades mankind lived to reinvest energy for a fraction of surplus energy that held him alive. Technology changed it all. Using technology (knowledge) to extract coal/oil/energy and replace slaves, the western world became what it is today: a civilization using huge amounts of surplus energy to support a diversified civilization.

THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION OF ALL IS THEREFORE: is there any alternative, renewable energy source that gives us approximately the same amount of surplus energy? AFAIK biofuels are no option (not the ones we currently use -- you know how energy intensive farming is???). Solar energy -- I'm not sure. Even if it is, it cannot replace many oil uses. Maybe we can replace the non-transport oil uses by other stuff. But what about agriculture, ie. fertilizers and "green revolution"? What about phosphor?

This is getting very, very complicated. And if we don't shut down the use of oil for transportation *NOW*, a shortage of it could have desastrous effects on more important parts of our economy -- on our food!

BTW: are there any estimates when phosphor peak will have effects on yields?

Are there any estimates how high oil prices can go before they have an impact on agricultural global yields?

[Beau]

So, why not use a mix of nuclear energy and an entirely new process outlined here:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/

[JAMES]

These comments have managed to make a mockery out of science, tax laws, and credible sources.

Science: Flaw #1 "Peak oil has nothing to do with reserve size."
Reserves=[Reserves Initially In Place]-[Produced Oil]
With this fact, everything produced from this point forward equals our current reserves, which means that our current reserve size dictates our future production. So Peak Oil identifies that our reserves (reserve size) will continue to decline from this point forward.

Tax Law: "Companies pay taxes on oil once it is found."
I don't know what book you read that out of, but please put it down. Companies pay taxes on oil that they produce, it is in their best interest to get a megaphone and announce their finds, therefore more people will invest in their stock and they all get happy. Please do not continue to announce this lie.

Credibility: Venezuela vs. Oil Companies
Oil companies are regulated by an army of US government employees and auditers. Venezuela is run by a socialist regime that has nationalized almost every major private industry. I believe the point of credibility is self illustrated.

Please look up your facts before you continue to comment.

-You Friendly Neighborhood Petroleum Engineer

[Greg]

Maybe the whole idea that oil is a non-renewable resourse is a lie. One of the greatest if its true...please read this article...maybe the Russians have it figured out. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952

[Michael]

Pamela, Don't believe everything you watch on YouTube.

Henry Ford's plastic car was not made from hemp, but from soy beans. Ford purchased thousands of acres of land to grow soybeans to make car bodies, but those plans were scrapped with the advent of WWII, and the land became war factories and later, Ford's world headquarters in Dearborn. Michigan.

You CAN run a car on soybean oil, it will burn in a diesel engine or a turbine engine, and you can break it down further into a variety of ethanol, but to produce the amount of fuel that we need would cause the same kind of crowding out in the food market that corn has experienced, meaning that cars will be less efficient and the poor will starve.

Hardly a green solution at all.

[B-Weezy]

Can't live in the modern age without some sort of petroleum product. Period.

There are massive amounts of gas hydrates in North America and in parts of the Oceans. This resource alone could last humans for many many years to come. As soon as we can economically produce it.

North America is also the leader in unconventional resources such as Shale Gas and Coal Bed Methane. We will be fine for quite some time.

The only problem with these resources is they cost more to produce, make that unit of cost dollars or barrels it is all the same.

The Big 'Ol Bad Oil Companies don't have as much say in their pricing as you would think. If you are speaking about gasoline alone then you are most likely paying for the R&D it takes them to get such petroleum products and the refining and addition of chemicals to make your car run cleaner.

Let's not forget that most Oil Companies are not nationalized. They are, listen now, COMPANIES. What is the goal of a company? To make money. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at pharmaceutical companies or those mean hedging firms. Actually just get mad at who you want because this is a free world and it is made possible by Oil.

i.e. Industrial revolution, plastics, polymers, etc. etc.

Oh and for peak oil, I have seen the projections, they extrapolate from the last few data points in a linear fashion. Since we all know the roller coaster of the oil industry works as predictable as a straight line.

[Rod Van Orden]

Oil does not come from dinosaur juice, and we are not running out of oil. Oil production by the earth is a natural function of the planet, and it occurs about 100 miles below the surface, as we speak. We have the appearance that we are running out because of badly misguided governmental policies which forbid oil and natural gas drilling. There is more oil produced by the earth in a year than we will ever use in a life time......!

Misguided governmental policy also produces highly wasteful practices such as the costly ethanol / additives which are added to our fuels in California. Aside from driving the consumer price up at the pump, it wastes diesel fuel. It takes 3 gallons of diesel fuel to produce 1 gallon of additive. That figures! The only "GREEN" that is seen here is the greenback flow from the citizen to those in power of a government- fostered, monopolistic monolith.

All Power to the People! Drill, Baby, Drill!

[David Watt]

Peak oil is not a myth and though detailed timing is still uncertain there is no doubt it will come quite soon. And don't expect coal to ride to the rescue. At best it will slow the decline for 2 or 3 decades.
We don't have enough fuel that we can afford to extract to cause global warming even if the AGW theory is correct (which of course it isn't).
We are heading into a great big real problem in finding enough energy to keep our civilisation going and all our leaders are all busily addressing an imaginary problem caused by future emissions from reserves we don't have.

[Gavin]

OK so this post made me go crazy for a few days, and then I found some alternative analysis (by leading hydrocarbon depletion analyst Kjell Aklett) that is a lot easier to live with.

The gist plus my own conclusions: yes peak oil has occurred, and world production will decline year on year from now onwards.

However we arent on the edge of a cliff, we are looking at an "undulating plateau".

Now whilst the undulating plateau this is not ideal in terms of today's models of economic growth, it is certainly a manageable situation and we are more than capable of a transition into an economy which is far less oil dependent and far more sustainable.

However it is important to understand that any attempt to spur economic growth based on increasing global hydrocarbon supply will fail, and the only strategies that will succeed are those that are based on year on year reduction in petroleum usage. Its really a different mindset for today's policy makers (and their voting publics) but one that they need to get their heads around.

Now to Prof Aklett's analysis. First some background: In 2008 the International Energy Agency (IEA) published their World Energy Outlook (WEO) forecasting supply until 2030.

This was the first study by that agency which took a realistic look at depletion of fields presently in production. However they simulataneously made highly unrealistic predictions of future production of natural gas liquids (NGLs), fields yet to be produced and fields yet to be discovered, arriving at the fantastical total of 108 Mb/d in 2030. Consequently, their findings have not been taken seriously in the peak oil community.

So Prof Aklett's methodology is to accept the IEA WEO analysis of decline of existing fields, which is one of the most comprehensive ever undertaken, and which itself does resemble the charts above.

But he has revised down their forecasts of everything else in the WEO: revised down the NGLs, the forecast of existing fields yet to be produced, and of oil yet to be found, to more realistic levels based on actual discovery and depletion experience.

What he finds is that we will be producing about 75 Mb/d in 2030 vs the IEA's fictional 108 Mb/d. Now 75 Mb/d is somewhat less than today's (84 Mb/d) but is also a lot more than the charts above are predicting for that year. My gut feel is that some of the production is optimistic, especially for the non-conventionals, which means we may be looking at 60 Mb/d-70 Mb/d, then again Prof Aklett knows more about this then me.

Now to the mitigation of this issue. As I said above, the only strategy that will work is year on year reduction in petroleum usage. There are a large number of ways of achieving this. Only one government that I am aware of, Sweden, has a coherent program aiming to explictly reduce their petroleum usage, by 25-40% by 2020.

The EU, UK, the US, and yes, China and India, need to follow the Swedish lead and formulate similar policies.

Reference: http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/20090611%20Sydney4.pdf

[ZT]

It's disturbing to see so many people believe this "renewable oil" nonsense. The fact is, even if the theory were correct, we'd still run out of oil. If oil were being constantly produced for millions of years, instead of being produced by a proccess that takes millions of years, than it must be at a very slow rate-- otherwise, we'd be swimming in it. If oil were renewable at a rate that was even close to current (not to mention future) world energy consumption, than would mean millions a barrels a day. I havn't crunched the numbers, but if you multiply that by the entire length of the Earth's existance than you get an absurd amount of oil.

[Franc]

Do these GW alarmist also believe in the tooth fairy? You people are being played. The earth's core is a giant reactor and the heat is churning out more oil each year. There is oil in the ocean due to leaking fissures in the earth's mantle. It may cost a bit more to get oil or other energy but car's will get better mileage with plug-in hybrids and other technologies, nuclear power can improve, geothermal is endless and huge, solar will improve, America has 4 times the Saudis oil reserves in clean coal & shale oil, the list goes on and on.

The UK and America need to stop allowing uncontrolled immigration because it is causing the world population to grow at a faster rate. This is a much bigger concern than GW fantasy and peak oil. Exploding populations make countries into miserable crowded sewers filled with suffering. This creates sprawl that develops more land.

People need to fear corrupt politicians selling this GW money making and taxing scam. Al Gore is getting insanely wealthy peddling this fraud.

[Don Kords]

The earth is flat. Our solar system rotates around the earth. Heavy objects fall faster than light ones. Popular theories once widely believed.
I'm amazed by the lack of scientific education, and what our schools teach: junk science. Political agenda becomes propaganda. People graduate with indoctrination, not an education.
And so oil is "fossil fuel" and running out, and the earth is warming, due to "fossil fuel". Sure it is. The Soviets and Professor Gold must be wrong. America seems to be running out of intelligence.

[Joseph Kempton]

The only reason Oil production is decreasing is because the United States is limiting domestic production

[John]

Are you English crazy? You have no idea how you are messing up your freedom and liberty with imposing this stuff on your people and accepting it. It is amazing. I was in London a few weeks ago and was appalled at the fact that you can buy a beer in a vending machine, but you can not have a decent bath because of the regulator on the hot water spicket. Un...F***ing Believable. No wonder you lost the Revolutionary War!!!!!

[Don Meaker]

First, since we have been told that plastic lasts forever in landfills, we just need to mine our landfills to get all the plastics we need.

Second, a certain amount of oil is available at a given price. At higher prices more oil becomes available. The Fischer Tropf process has been used to synthesize oil, most famously by Germany, even while being bombed from the air. Synthetic oil can be made from coal, natural gas, or biomass.

Oil only needs to last until we develop nuclear fusion upon which time a handful of sea water has all the energy you need for your entire life.

once there are more than 20 years of proven reserves, there is no need to invest now and prove more. There has never been m ore than 20 years proven reserves since the 1920s when proven reserve were booked.

[Paul Harmon]

Iran is just another oil front for the "ill American Economy."
America is too arrogant, incompetent, and divided to make any sound and right decisions. The US economy is the greatest glutinous waist of fossil fuels that has ever existed.

[Fred]

There's 2 Trillion, that's 2000 Billion, bbls of oil in northern Alberta alone. You 'greens' are a lot of naive fools. I feel dearly sorry for those poor
rational, thinking Brits that this enviro-eco-mentalist hogwash is constantly forced upon.

[Jack Kennedy]

the hate America liberals are out in force to screw the Real Americans, again

[Matt]

It's not going to happen in our lifetime so to be honest, who actually cares?

[Pat from Texas]

The "saving" flourescent bulbs contain mercury - a poison. If you break them, special precaution (face masks, etc) are supposed to be used.

I didn't realize they had mercury and broke one, put it in my open paper trash can in my kitchen.

You are supposed to take it to a special waste place. Where? across town every time a bulb blows? They are glass - they do break.

The dump? Glass breaks - so we have big fields of air-borne, soil stained mercury. Our own atomic bomblet.

Save plastic bags? I reuse mine for trash so I don't have to buy more. Also, I can carry three or four bags upstairs, unloading my groceries in two trips as opposed to one paper bag a trip - fourteen trips?

Pardon me if I believe you greenbacks are idiots.

[helen]

Surely no rational person can deny that there is some sort of important climate change occuring, no matter who or what the source is, or if it is a natural cycle. Bind that with our inability to find alternative but sustainable energy sources and the result is ultimately catastrophe for humanity as it stands. Suggest reading Charles Clover article Killing mother nature with our green creed.

[Eric Gisin]

"because a significant amount of oil is used to extract and refine and deliver oil"

This is an outright lie. Drilling accounts for less then 10%,
and refining fuel oil only adds 10%. Only oil sands have significant energy inputs.

[patfromtexas]

The dollar bill is a greenback. I am referring to the waste of money by the "Greens" (and a long list of other things like water for food) that the "Greens" propose.

In one of the most fertile food growing valleys of California, the greens have cut off the total water supply for some stupid kind of minnow - like no form of life has ever disappeared from the earth before. Wonder why we still are here! The land is now barren. Are we supposed to eat minnows? Stupid waste.

Anyway - about the cloth bags - I am a lol (little old lady - but I'll deny it) who lives in a second floor apt. With the plastic I can control my carrying. The cloth bags I have seen are rather large and would be heavy or half empty and unweildy. I certainly couldn't manage six of those in a try.

As I said - recycle the plastic.

cheers

[Chris Shaw, Australia]

Frankly, some of the commentators show little appreciation of the extent of the human footprint. We humans are both wonderful and terrible. We are ingeneous and ignorant in equal measure.

Here's a little video which dwells upon the extent to which we are carving up our home:

http://www.youtube.com/homeproject

If you don't like what it reveals, at least refute their evidence with some properly researched statistics of your own.

[mr repremanded]

james ( 17.25 ) tells me off , ( for which Im gratefull , thankyou ) .
I'm still not a believer in " peak oil " the scare story , though .
Science flaw 1 ) There is a finite amount of ( accessable ) oil . ( not proven ) .
Tax law ) EERRR no , Tax is ledgeslation , this is not Law . ( natural law and common law , are law ) legeslation , are rules ( only )
They are rules given the force of law by consent , ( vollentary ) but most definately not law .
Credibility ? ) " an army of US government officials , auditers etc . " ahem,
" never ever trust a government " . ( good advice )
The " future " as far as I am aware is " unknowable " anyone claiming to know it as fact , is delusional .
When and if something happens , then we should react , untill then nothing will change .
I think of all the scary stories about the future , and wonder " what is this smoke screen actually hiding ? ". Another thing I wonder is " who gains " . One thing I dont do , is worry , I know for certain that they dont know the future .

[bigfoot]

criss from australia , mentions the human footprint . just before i watch the vid he recomends , I would like to say that if you divide the surface of the earth by the number of people on it , and the unfrozen atmosphere ( 10% ) , it works out that there are 4 people to each cubic mile of air . People are not the problem ,
( the vid is depressing , I switched it off ) lol

[Pat from Texas]

For the time being, we have oil and gas. It may or may not be a renewable resource - the internal forces of the earth may or may not be producing more.

The idea that as of now, we can't plan on an indefinite supply, is perhaps the only really reasonable thing I have heard the "Greens" say. From there on they take a sharp left over the side ot the mountain.

They Greens get yellow and scream "catastrophe ahead."

It is like Obama and his hurry up and pass my bills or the world will end - it doesn't matter if you haven't read them and haven't a clue what is in them.

Stop. All of you. Think.

There are cars that run on sugar water, cars that run on water, soya or corn. It the government and the greens would get out of the way, the market will come up with a good substitute. The government pushing corn, then people not having enough to eat, should show you something.

To spend millions on some mouse - adding to the zillion dollar debt we're storing up - to ruin the best food growing valley in California by turning the water away because there is a minnow in the water (and heavens - we must save a minnow - the fate of the world depends upon it!) As I said, species have been dying since they began - the world goes right along.

i was happy to at last hear the Pope say we should not destroy man to save the green favorites. (Not his words).

If the greens and the government would get out of the way, we'd have alternate forms of energy - just what they supposedly want.

Of course, if we chose Atomic, then Gore wouldn't get so rich and obama would lose his bribe money.

Let's try a little proportion in our lives.

[Chris Shaw, Australia]

Go and stroke your lovely, shiny car. Go right ahead.

Before it was ever purchased, it's creation consumed 20% of all the energy it will use in it's useful lifetime.

Now put 50 litres of fuel into the tank....

40 litres are turned into noise, heat and pollution. 10 litres are turned into motion. You the driver account for only a few percent of the nett weight.

Of that 50 litres of fuel, all but a small glassful is utterly wasted in the task of moving you around.

The plain fact is that lovely shiny cars are nothing but a criminally inefficient waste of precious fuel. The whole fantasyland of sleek, shiny cars was only made possible by a superabundance of easy, light, sweet oil. Oil has an energy density like no other.

If you think that sufficient alternative liquid fuels will be created, so that car owners can waste 90% of it - you'd better think again.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

[Garry Hills]

Are people still falling for this hype. I thought the whole green, global warming, tax con were in the past. Don't fall for it and get on with your life.

[Joanglo Saxon]

"Silverstone" and "Top Gear" will help us to use up the oil much quicker - is this a good thing ?

[Gavin]

I've found a cure for the peak oil blues. Whilst it is that certain global oil production will peak and go into decline, if it hasn't already, there is no reason to believe the peak oil dogma (doomerism). The peak oil debunked blog (http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com) contains several hundred posts each presenting superb deconstructions of peak oil dogma.

For the author of the blog, JD, there are no sacred cows in peak oil dogma (apart from the physical peaking of oil itself). Although he uses a humorous and often mocking tone, his also uses quantified analysis to great effect. And over the past few days, many of my depressing beliefs about peak oil have evaporated. This includes the oil and fertilizer myth, the Hirsch report, the collapse of suburbia.

JD explains that you don't need oil to create fertilizer, you need nitrogen and energy. There are dozens of way to do it in an oil poor world. The Hirsch report, which explains that peak oil requires 20 years of mitigation, focuses almost entirely on the supply side when in reality there are many policy options on the demand side which can collectively mitigate the problem, even if post peak.

And as for the collapse of suburbia, JD joyfully counters that if need becomes sufficiently great, massive oil conservation is possible by replacing single car to work journeys with mopeds.

Finally, cheer up and watch this google.org video about Enhanced Geothermal Systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6r_3AgI49Y

[Meadowhawk]

This is one of the biggest hoaxes since man first stood erect.

How gullible you are to think you can reverse a natural occurrence. You might want to read the Scripps' Institute article on this hoax at Climate Depot.

We aren't going to burn up; you will not be lost to tsunamis, the only crop shortages will come by subsidies so we have to depend on foreign food.

As for oil - we have in the continental USA itself a veritable ocean of oil under the area of MT, UT,CO,KS, WY, the Dakotas. It will last for centuries - not only oil, but non-polluting natural gas.

You are idiots for panicking. You are cult followers. You are four years old.

[Noel]

If oil production declines, as things stand, that's likely to be bad for CO2 production, as many countries will turn to coal instead, which releases even more CO2 per watt of energy produced. Nuclear would be better, from the CO2 standpoint, but it has other issues (e.g. waste handling).

[JiggsCasey]

People really need to get a clue, and find a way out of the denial stage.

The collective ignorance in some of these comments is utterly astounding. It's to the baffling point that Peak Oil awareness is what's ironically considered the "junk science?" That's excellent. I'm reminded of Frank Drebbin yelling "please stand back! nothing to see here!" to horrified onlookers, while carnage unfolds behind him.

Let's clear up a few "everything is fine" myths, if we might:

- Alberta tar sands does not produce light crude oil at all. It is bitumen. Oil shale also is not crude oil. It is kerogen. Both are synthetics. Cars will not run on them. Further, the extraction process is incredibly expensive, pollutes the ground water for miles around, and is essentially strip mining of the most horrific kind.

- Global oil discovery peaked in the 1960s. That is not disputed among geologists. It's arrogant to pretend "we just haven't found it all yet." This planet has been scoured for the stuff many times over, decades ago, using state-of-the-art equipment. They are not finding new pools of any significance. Haven't for 40 years.

- The biggest field in the world, Saudi's Ghawar, now requires sea water injections just to push up what's left. That is the death knell of any oil field. And as Matthew Simmons and many others proclaimed, when Saudi Arabia goes into decline, the world is officially in decline. Saudi has already told the West twice in the last year it can not and will not meet demand goals to match demand growth. Shortly after the first assessment last fall, and not by coincidence, global markets began to collapse.

- It will take 25 to 30 years to transfer to an alternative energy source, and that's if we found a "miracle battery pack" as soon as tomorrow. The reality is that we have nothing on the horizon that will sustain our current level of consumption. Meanwhile, that says nothing of unending population growth and increased demand from India and China.

- Peakoildebunked is a highly flawed site that misses the argument of peak oil, entirely, and does not dispute the geology, but rests its entire thesis on "effortless conservation" and oil shale/tar sands.

- Nitrogen for fertilizers does indeed require hydrocarbons to make. That says nothing of the machinery required to process and deliver said food for billions. Meanwhile, much of our current heartland soil is sick from overfarming. You can't keep farming from the same land year after year after year. You deplete the nutrients.

It's interesting to watch the human condition react to bad news. Denial and anger is the default response.... In ancient Greece, they often killed the bearer of bad news. I wonder what the denialists would do to the world's geologists these days if those standards still applied.

The sad fact of the matter is this: Our lifestyles are very soon to change, and quite dramatically. There are simply too many people, conserving absolutely nothing, and demanding more and more energy. Even if there wasn't, the geology does not lie. The oil giants are not investing in new infrastructure, and they're not maintaining existing infrastructure. That should tell you something right there.

They're not spending on new oil because they know there's nothing out there.

[Cherenkov]

I'm rather stunned at the scientific illiteracy demonstrated in the comments.

About that "sea of oil" in the United States. As a former oil driller, I can definitively say that that is bunkum. This is a rather pathetic statement. Even a cursory review of the evidence refutes that.

The fellow who asserts that it does not take significant energy to extract oil is rather daft as well. At its height, the ratio of oil produced to oil equivalent used to produce said oil stood at 100 to 1. That is, for every barrel of oil burned to power the process of oil extraction, we got back 100 barrels. That was in the fifties. Currently the return is around 10 or 15 to 1 depending upon your source. The estimated absolute bottom efficiency level upon which industrial society rests has been calculated at somewhere between 7 to 1 and 10 to 1. That means we are right at the edge of irrevocable industrial collapse.

As for the twit who claimed that finite oil is unproven, I have only a few choice words: WE LIVE ON A SPHERE.

So many dumb people so few Darwin awards.

So, in conclusion, Physics is an unholy bastard in its relentless pursuit of absolute reality and cares not for your wishes and pleas.

[Pericles]

“You ‘greens’ are a lot of naive fools. ...” — Fred, 8th. July

Oh no, Fred ; they're far from fools : they're the socialists resurrected — and just as malignant.

[Dave Crossland]

The EROEI effect means that civilisation will collapse. It is that simple.

[garrington]

We'll evolve and grow legs again, and walk, and then invent the bicycle, so as to reach local facilities in our suburban world. We'll save on health care what we need to pay for expensive energy. We'll have a war economy for a while, since that will be a war to win against our own past greed, but the war won't last forever either. Maybe one or two generations. But... isn't that what's happening in... Palestine ?

[Dave in Notts]

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Actually I work in the energy industry so, unlike you I actuall know what I'm talking about.

We have HUNDREDS of years of oil left. We've just recovered the easy bits with 1930s technology. We've recovered perhaps 10-15% of North Sea oil, it's just that as yet the economics and technology easily available have limited recovery. However, you underestimate us. We're HUMAN. We INVENT things (at least some of us do, the failures become lawyers and journalists), this is why we don't live in caves any more.

Stop spreading panic and go out and get a real job. I despair at how many people in this country believe all this green nonsense

[the twit]

Posted by: Cherenkov | 14 Jul 2009 23:47:42
As for the twit who claimed that finite oil is unproven, I have only a few choice words: WE LIVE ON A SPHERE.
Im that twit , ( hehe ) You cannot prove that the earth has , or will stop making oil . The hoax that it is a " fossil fuel " is a "western dogma" . Its far more likely its abiotic and other theories suggest its limitless .
Here is a link to an article about the huge glut of oil we have now ( $20 a barrel , comming this year lol , even with production cuts )
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auTu3RI8WC1A

[warren]

Let's see, we were told in '73 that Alberta had 25 years of oil left and the rest of the world would run out in '08. How good were those predictions? Truth is only a small % of current known reserves have been produced. Thousands of people go to work each day to get the next drop out. Maybe the 'experts' who say we are running out could tell us how they would get the last drop out so those aforementioned could stay home. Let's hear it.

[Paul]

While a useful chart, he hasn't taken into consideration the reduction of production since summer 2008 due to the "recession". This capacity could come back on line causing a 2-3 year delay in his prediction of the depletion curve.

[Francis]

Dear PatfromTexas,

Your ignorance is completely astounding.

Cheers.

[wefail1990]

did you know cancer has no cure? its related to the environment, you have survivors who will never be "cured" and who keep getting cancer etc, drugs can slow and preserve and target but not eliminate, our society is chemicalized, and at some point you'll have people stealing blood and organs from others

I'm just sad for the oceans :P

[rob s]

In denial? Take your time and thoroughly digest this article. It's worth the effort believe me.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

[Robert Atack]

Basically the people do not want to know, and the leaders are to afraid to inform them, we face a dark future and soon.
Peak Oil - photo essay of futility http://www.youtube.com/user/oilcrash1#play/all/uploads-all/0/QlYTJ9JHY4A

[Don B. Silly]

Actually, there's enough oil, at present consumption, for about 400 years just in the Canadian tar sands.
And consumption may well go down in a few years. See http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-07/more-windpower-previously-thought
(and consider that we have the "miracle battery" for storage, it's pumped hydro, 60-70% efficiency).
Also consider how many windmills you can build for half the cost of a nuclear plant, and all other energy sources, if I were a Saudi I'd be really worried, but the rest of us shouldn't really panic about oil.

[Kieran O'Donnell]

Whether you subscribe to peak oil or not, the ethos of conservation and sufficiency has been great for my family. We eat better, we think twice before making unecessary journeys, we use one cooker ring instead of three, we think about water, we're learning to grow our own food... I could go on.

Imagine a petri dish of yeast, at some point the yeast grows to such a degree that it creates alcohol which in turn pollutes and kills the yeast. We are that yeast... 1 billion in the mid 19c, to 6 billion by 1999.

So we are an earth "cancer" and we will be dealt with. People want to save the environment, but the environment will always be here, it's US that needs saving.

Peak oil? Perhaps not, but even oil companies acknowledge it. See the Chevron website with an oil counter showing consumtion as you visit the site: http://www.willyoujoinus.com

85 million barrels a day? This week, next year, next 10 years? Our kids will suffer, and that's the legacy we leave. Ignore it at your peril, and if the "doomers" are wrong? I have lost nothing but a fat gut and a ridiculous large car. Good luck!

[Paris Hilton]

We aren't running out of oil we're running out of *cheap* oil. As oil becomes more expensive other methods become viable. As it increases in price Mfrs switch to other fuels. And this recession is cutting consumption by 20% or more. The wholesale re-engineering of society is underway .. it will take 100 earth years, then you may join the Galactic Fed of Green + Blue Planets

[read4liberty]

i love the argument ny meadowhawk:

"You are idiots for panicking. You are cult followers. You are four years old."

now i'm really convinced that the majority of the scientists must be wrong.

[Dale]

I don't really care.

With any luck a collapse in an oil driven economy will result in so much destruction that tens (maybe hundreds?) of millions will die.

This will stop "Global Warming," "Damage to The Environment," and all sorts of other bad things

By burning every last drop as quickly as possible we forward the Green Agenda.

[EdWall]

Whether or not we are running out of oil, we cannot continue using it as fuel because there are countless more of us using it, even if there is no great population increase. We cannot afford to endlessly pollute our environment. Humans are very inventive and it is apparent that a solution to this problem is here, but the transition to it is not going to happen in a nice orderly way, I expect.

Cold fusion was not some mistake:
http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n

Cold fusion has been accepted by the scientific community, at least by this standard. Recently, a book was published by Oxford Press, sponsored by the American Chemical Society, fully endorsing cold fusion:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/2008-LENR-Sourcebook/LENR-Sourcebook.shtml

You want freedom? You want decentralized political, economic and physical power? Support new energy research by becoming knowledgeable and argue from facts instead of fear.

[Kim Domnick]

There are so many types of alternative energy: solar energy, wind energy, wave energy, geothermal energy etc. Apparently, it is even possible to generate energy from fast swimming fish e.g salmon swimming upstream.
Yes, oil may be running out and it is probably better for our planet that it is. However, I see it as an opportunity to develop energy sources which do not threaten the existence of our planet and the many life forms on it.

[Gayle]

There is a certain irony in the timing of all this. Climate change, peak oil, global recession, swine flu - what's the link?

hmm. As a positive thinker and opportunist I believe we have a once in a lifetime opportuntity to change our high living, wild, western ways.

Are we finally going to accept the anecdotes, evidence, science, business leaders, greenies, geeks and governments who all finally AGREE we HAVE to CHANGE to our consumptive ways to design homes, communities, businesses to support a sustainable future?

The time for nay sayers was 20 years ago. Cuba shows us that life goes on post oil, just differently.

[Freddy Hutter, TrendLines Research]

This silly graph has been updated by the McPeaksters annually since 1989. It "always" shows PEAK was "last year" and the end is nigh...

At TrendLInes Research, we publish a monthly update of the current projections by the very best practitioners in the sector. The June version of the 17-model average indicates that PEAK will rise from today's 83-million barrels per day to 94-mbd in 2028. In short, oil will run out in about 210 years.

[Dan]

Wow! Not s single bit of truth in the entire article. Peak oil is a myth. The shortage in ouil production is artificial brought to us by the eco-nazis. AGW is a myth brought to us my the same bunch, both are false science driven by politics and greed.
Near where I live the Bakken oil fields are 4x all of Saudi Arabia's reserves.

[Henry]

I saw a very similar graph showing oil usage in a book published in about 1970.

It gave a clear warning - we will use all the world's oil by 1995!

[PeteB]

The award for best post goes to JiggsCasey (in my book anyway).

One thing I do disagree with - "The sad fact of the matter is this: Our lifestyles are very soon to change, and quite dramatically."

I don't think that's a sad fact, given the rat races most of try to live in.

No, the really sad fact is that the Worlds poorest are going to suffer the most and are least able to adapt to the changes in climate.

[gareh barrell]

83 million barrels a day consumed, 1.4 trillion barrels of KNOWN reserves - do the maths, play with the figures, don't forget global consumption is increasing. Simple really.

[Soylent]

"Cuba shows us that life goes on post oil, just differently."

What are you gibbering about?

Cuba had a 20% downward blip in oil consumption over a couple of years. Then oil consumption recovered to 200 kbbl/day.

Cuba consumes as much oil as it did in 1980, so does the US, so does the EU.

Cuba nonetheless has a couple of lessons to teach: central planning doesn't work and it doesn't matter how many times you try it, oil supply shocks are very damaging even if transient, gardens are fun but their food production is terrible.

[Zachary Moitoza]

The fuel supply for nuclear power is virtually limitless if we use Integral Fast Reactors. This reactor completely solves all the problems associated with light water reactors: waste, cost, safety, proliferation, and fuel supply.
http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

[Soylent]

"The EROEI effect means that civilisation will collapse. It is that simple." - Dave Crossland.

Like other anti-humanists you are confusing your fervent desire to see civilization collapse and most of humanity die with factual reality.

A tonne of the Earth's crust contains on average 3 grams of uranium and 10 grams of thorium. Fully utilized in a reactor(thermal breeder MSR for the thorium and sodium or lead-bismuth cooled fast reactor for the uranium) this represents the same amount of energy as 140 barrels of oil.

As such, the "energy crisis" is a contrived fiction. It is a crisis for the entrenched fossil fuel industry and it will be a costly re-tooling of society(especially the automobile industry) but that is about the limits of it.

Some anti-humanists recognize the abundance of fissile and fissionable materials as a severe threat to their dystopian fantasies and work to propagandize against it; e.g. see the pathetic hack-jobs by Storm-Smith and Amory Lovins(the same man who said: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it”). Pathetic substitutes like wind energy are backed by anti-humanists and fossil fuel interests alike, not because they are effective but because they are not.

[Pedro Joaquin Sanchez Belmar]

THE world’s biggest oil and gas companies are suffering the most precipitous fall in profits in the history of the industry, it will be revealed this week.

[Dave]

the real reason whe are actually more at risk than we currently believe is shown at http://watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/chartpages/r/r7resjump.html,

[Richard UK]

It's the oil used on fertiliser that worries me.

Fritz Haber invented nitrate fertiliser for munitions, but without that invention the world would only support 1/5th of present day population.
Anyone else notice that the population explosion started shortly after WW1?

When oil price goes up, people go hungry.
Thats why I have a store of long lasting food in my cellar.
It aint much, but it's better than nothing.

[John]

The point about Canadian tar sands is a perfect illustration of the second graph. That costs almost as much energy to extract as is obtained from it, so it really is hopelessly inefficient and very polluting. The key to future energy lies in vast tracts of desert- the Sahara in the old world and the SW US in the new being given over to solar power. This land is useless and supports little life anyway. Nuclear power is also a valid alternative. Wind farms are a waste of money.

[KARL BARROW]

Yet another clear signal that we have to change our ways on a planetary scale. The problem is we are rapidly running out of time(James Hansen of NASA'a prediction that we have 100 months in February to make the shift ). I'm not sure the world's leaders are prepared to make the paradigm shifts necessary to avert global catastrope on a whole variety of issues and not just peak oil and climate change.

[Peter Harris]

I've heard of Esther Boserup. Will take my chances.

[wiltsrover]

Peak oil is going to solve the problem of climate change so why the desire to alienate "deniers" by the incessant rudeness and likening them to Nazis and similar unwarranted comparisons?

All we deniers are saying is that the programs supposedly proving climate change is man made are pathetic unprofessional rubbish that would never stand up to the sort of questioning that would occur if it was presented to an engineering company for approval. But then no engineering company has a budget that is available without the approval of its customers because the cash is extorted by compulsion and the threat of imprisonment.
If AGW has a good case why are its supporters so terrified of the demands for independant scrutiny?