Oil Peak
 

Oohboy.
I found this link on fark.com, which reads (in part):

I read the whole article.

I am now shaking in my boots.

Tonight I am going to call my mom (a former oil company engineer) and ask her about this.

There have been so many scares over the years (water, air, food, Y2K, bioterrors, gmos, ad nauseum) that I'm reluctant to believe his whole premise lock, stock and barrel.

But I couldn't find any logical errors in his reasoning.

Oh, shit.

- Pie

My comment was 6th on that thread:

There are always doomsayers.

There is never doom.

This is a pattern I have noticed in life.

Unfortunately, I can't read the fark comments here from work (I'm not sure why; it just tells me that "connection was refused from 127.0.0.1"... I think my employer blocks it).

I agree that my gut tells me this is all a tempest in a teacup, but do you have data? Where is his argument flawed? What figures does he use that are incorrect? What has he overlooked?

Feelings and intuition don't play a role here. But please, someone, prove him wrong!

- Pie :worried:

I dont normally comment on your threads Pie, but let me throw my silly opinion in here.

If oil becomes unavailable for what ever reason, just watch the alternative evergy sources that will emerge that were previously uneconomical.

Many might even be more eco-friendly. Who knows?

I'd rather worry about the Dems kicking my door down to nab my handguns. :D

So wait, according to this guy, the peak oil thing is already a problem ... and we haven't touched ANWAR, right? Thought that was supposed to be one of those 100 year reserves ... by which time we just might find some other energy source.

Well there are probably many ways to debunk it. My favorite is through markets. This guy doesn't understand how markets work and how they smooth out even the worst problems like this.

Standard supply curve stuff applies. If the supply goes down, the price will increase. Demand will decrease. Then a smaller supply is needed from there on out...

Markets apply in spades. There are futures markets in oil where you can buy barrels of oil next year with the money you have now. If your business depends on oil, you can smooth out your own risk by buying futures contracts now. Or you could buy half of your oil in futures contracts and half on delivery or something. I don't really know all the mechanics of it, but I know it's done.

If there really is a sea change in the supply of oil, it will change so many different things first, before it's even noticed by anyone. I imagine the futures market drives exploration which smooths out this problem. It would also affect how alternative sources are used and how they're managed. I've heard that shale becomes instantly interesting if the price of oil doubles, and how that's a ceiling on the price of oil.

It would also change how we feel about conservation; if the price of gas doubled, like the 70s we would quickly head back to the dealership and turn in our minivans for Mini Coopers. We'd go through a messy time while we made the transition to some new approach. And then we'd find our feet again, and eventually power our cars with hydrogren generated by nukes at night or something. And press for more Segway lanes downtown.

The real problem is not transportation or energy per se. It's the Green Revolution. The world currently has enough to eat (if in fact it does) because of petrochemicals.

Keep increasing the population at the current rate* and decrease (or even keep constant) the food supply**. What happens? Perhaps over here in Rich America our fat asses won't notice the problem for a while, but people will die. Millions of them. Billions of them? And all without considering the ramafications of transportation or other energy needs.

- Pie


* Heaven forbid we spend money on population control, right Mr. Bush?

** http://www.2030spike.com/excerpts_chptr_2.htm
"Current corn yields in the United States, now 130 bushels an acre, [would fall] to around 30 bushels."

The food is also subject to those market conditions.

And BTW, population control is now no longer needed - that's the previous doomsaying end of the world scenario, and 30 years later it's been completely and utterly debunked.

How many people can the world's infrastructure support? You do think there is an upper limit, right? It may not be soon, but it is coming.

Doomsayers are always premature, but population does increase exponentially. Slowing the rate of increase is preferable to waiting for an event to decrease it.

The population boom doom stuff was a big deal in the 70s. Many many people thought it was inevitable and disastrous. It was taught in universities that way.

But then something happened, and it's no longer a problem:

http://www.uwsp.edu/business/economi...ld_bearing.jpg

So I say, when predicting the future, don't count on current trends remaining current.

"[If grain shipments stop] many here on Terra would die. Have you read Malthus?"

"Don't think so."

"Many would die. Then a new stability would be reached with somewhat more people--more efficient people and better fed. This planet isn't crowded; it is just mismanaged... and the unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food. 'Give.' Read Malthus. It is never safe to laugh at Dr. Malthus; he always has the last laugh. A depressing man, I'm glad he's dead."

- Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

You don't think that that something that happened may have been the start of population control measures in China and the promotion of birth control in the third world by the US? Would we be OK if those were removed? (The latter already has been, after that chart was made).

That's like Bush saying that the air is much cleaner now than it was in the '70s, so we can ease up on the regulations. The pollution issue hasn't gotten less important - we were doing something about it. If we stop doing it, things will get worse again.

That's probably part of it, but the point remains that in predicting the future, you can't discount the possibility that pigs may in fact fly.

In fact, with our ability to manage genetics, one could almost be certain at this point that pigs WILL fly. Think about that for a moment... the very metaphor for the impossible could almost certainly be achieved within our lifetimes, if we wanted it. Talk about raising the bar. We should do a flying pig instead of a Mars mission.

Point is, innovations happen, we get more productive, we advance and this all has a bearing on the future, which is why it's impossible to predict.

I'd rather not have pigs flying around pooping on stuff. The pigeons are bad enough.

You're also up against the cube/square law. You'd have to have some honking big wings to lift a pig. Even if you could do it, it wouldn't be practical.