Prove me wrong about Peak Oil.

[Ian A.]

Peak Oil is the theory that oil reserves are not infinite, and that once you pass the "peak" of oil production, oil becomes harder and more expensive to withdraw from the ground.

In 2006, I finished my senior project on Peak Oil. I featured Michael Ruppert heavily in it. It was the best film I had ever made and I was proud of it. But given how I now believe Global Warming to be a hoax, and given how Ruppert believed in Climate Change, both he and everyone else who believed in Peak Oil could be wrong too.

The science behind Peak Oil is pretty commonsensical, and I have yet to hear Alex Jones or anyone else debunk the SCIENCE behind it. Here is a graph of oil discoveries and production in the U.S.


http://www.grinningplanet.com/2005/06-14/1-oil-discoveries.jpg

The discovery of oil reserves peaked in 1933. The production peaked in 1970. Since then we have gone from a oil exporting nation, to an oil importing nation.



http://agoodhuman.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/world-oil-discovery-10-years-period.jpg

Likewise, oil discoveries worldwide peaked in 1964. When will production peak? Has it peaked already?


Future world oil production?
http://watd.wuthering-heights.co.uk/chartimages/p/p5oilprodworld.gif

Unless petroleum is abiotic (which means infinite), it's obvious it will peak eventually. What will that mean? Will the market handle the change, or are we so dependent on oil to survive that society will collapse?

[torchbearer]

You are correct-


Peak Oil is the theory

You are also correct-


there is a finite amount of oil


everything else beyond that is just a guess.

[Dieseler]

I don't personally know but I will say this.
The Market does not agree with the theory and the people that drill and pump the stuff must not either. Do you think they would miss a GOLDEN opportunity to make a petro buck if they knew that we were Half Out of Oil?
Even if it is true,
There's not much of anything YOU can do about it.
Well, you could stop buying it but, sorry, I am not.
Mad Max Baby...

[Oyate]

I'll give it a shot. You are wrong because I say so. I'm your senior and your better. Argue with me and I don't mind coming to your town and beating you like a rented mule in front of your friends and family to prove it. If that don't take there's always the shotgun. Don't mess with me punk. Surrender while you still can.

[Dieseler]

I'll give it a shot. You are wrong because I say so. I'm your senior and your better. Argue with me and I don't mind coming to your town and beating you like a rented mule in front of your friends and family to prove it. If that don't take there's always the shotgun. Don't mess with me punk. Surrender while you still can.

:D
Yeah! RAAAAWRRR!

[Ian A.]

You are wrong because I say so. I'm your senior and your better.

If I had a dick as small as yours I would say the same to you.

Anyone have real answers to an otherwise serious discussion?

[silverhandorder]

Who cares if it's peak oil or not?

[Ian A.]

Who cares if it's peak oil or not?

It means the collapse of the world economy--whether we have sound money or not. Of course, like I say, I could be wrong. But given how utterly dependent our economy is on oil, economic consequences seem like a given.

[Dieseler]

If I had a dick I would say the same to you.



Fixed that for ya.

[dannno]

I don't think any of us here have the capacity of information necessary to prove peak oil is a myth.. Unfortunately I think that Prudhoe Bay would be a difficult trip and even if I were there I'd have no idea what to do in order to prove that it is the largest oil field on earth.

[Ian A.]

Fixed that for ya.

Guys please. This is just as serious a topic as the NWO, the FED, or anything else in the liberty movement. I don't want to stomp on your nuts all the time.

[silverhandorder]

It means the collapse of the world economy--whether we have sound money or not. Of course, like I say, I could be wrong. But given how utterly dependent our economy is on oil, economic consequences seem like a given.

So why spend time worrying about it? If you are interested in it good for you. Do you think political forum really has this anywhere high on the list of priorities to worry about?

[Dieseler]

Guys please. This is just as serious a topic as the NWO, the FED, or anything else in the liberty movement. I don't want to stomp on your nuts all the time.

Well, did you miss the other thread on this subject?
Several pages long now.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218374

[johnrocks]

It means the collapse of the world economy--whether we have sound money or not. Of course, like I say, I could be wrong. But given how utterly dependent our economy is on oil, economic consequences seem like a given.

What about Natural and Methane gas hydrates, there is enough of that alone to supply us with energy at present levels for over 1000 years.

[Ian A.]

So why spend time worrying about it?

Because if it's true, people need to focus on changing their lifestyle now. If certain people make the right decisions soon enough, they won't starve or be without power.


Well, did you miss the other thread on this subject?

No, but A. we need a new thread since this is a popular subject at the moment, and B I saw little refutation of the science behind Peak Oil. That's what this thread is about.


What about Natural and Methane gas hydrates, there is enough of that alone to supply us with energy at present levels for over 1000 years.

Do you have a link to this information?

[silverhandorder]

Because if it's true, people need to focus on changing their lifestyle now. If certain people make the right decisions soon enough, they won't starve or be without power.

Warning taken won't see me complain if I end up starving.

[pcosmar]

Guys please. This is just as serious a topic as the NWO, the FED, or anything else in the liberty movement. I don't want to stomp on your nuts all the time.

Perhaps I remember history differently than you. And due to that, I question the "science" and the "facts".
I remember the gas wars that forced the Independents out of business. And then suddenly there was an oil "shortage" and prices (along with profits) skyrocketed.
Independent drillers and exploration came to an end. It was all controlled by the cartels.
Now it may well come to an end someday. But it was predicted to do that long ago, and that never happened.
Excuse me if I don't take the word of those that have been proven to be both wrong and lairs.

[dannno]

What the hell is Michael Ruppert doing supporting global warming??

[Ian A.]

What the hell is Michael Ruppert doing supporting global warming??

I don't know. He makes me face-palm. If he could be suckered into such a pathetic scam, I question whether a non-geologist like himself is wrong about Peak Oil.


Check out 4:14
YouTube - Michael Ruppert Denial Stops Here 10of13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_n2rNTeORA&feature=related)

[BenIsForRon]

maybe the fact that Ruppert supports global warming should make you rethink your stance on global warming, not peak oil.

[dannno]

I don't know. He makes me face-palm. If he could be suckered into such a pathetic scam, I question whether a non-geologist like himself is wrong about Peak Oil.


Check out 4:14
YouTube - Michael Ruppert Denial Stops Here 10of13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_n2rNTeORA&feature=related)

Well I tend to agree that oil is better for making re-usable and recyclable plastic containers, tires, etc, and we should avoid using it as an energy source if at all possible.. Ruppert makes a good point about compressed hydrogen as an energy source in cars (who's going to do the crash tests?), and I am fully aware that we do not have enough alt. energies to compensate for what we are doing today.. but I'm not convinced that we don't have enough alt. energy to live comfortably in a more sustainable society using organic, local farming, etc..

[Ian A.]

rethink your stance on global warming, not peak oil.

I certainly used to believe in Global Warming--fanatically actually. But the case against it is so damning I find it hard to ignore.

YouTube - Global Warming/Inconvenient Truth=Propaganda part 1 of 9 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOEPOvR1YAM)

[bossman068410]

Peak Oil myth is like the Man made global warming myth.

Study this

1) Coal to Oil
2) Natural Gas reserves
3) history of peak oil myth (we were supposed to have run out of it allready)
4) The belief that petroleum was a fossil fuel, therefore biological in its origin. What the modern Russian and Ukrainian scientists have extensively proven is that petroleum is abiotic, meaning that it is not derived from long decayed biological matter.

http://www.the7thfire.com/peak_oil/ending_debate_on_peak_oil.htm

Michael C. Lynch, Chief Energy Economist, DRI-WEFA, Inc.September 2001
The past five years have seen a renewed debate on the issue of oil supply and the possibility of a near-term peak in production and the concomitant adverse economic consequences. A number of articles have stated that discoveries over the past thirty years have been only a fraction of consumption and that according to the Hubbert Curve method, world oil production is close to a peak. What few people realize is that these arguments are based entirely on a very particular technical argument, and recent evidence has highlighted its fallacy.

The greatest attention was achieved by the March 1998 Scientific American article "The End of Cheap Oil" by Jean Laherrere and Colin Campbell, largely due to the extreme nature of their warning--production peaking within a few year and the alleged irrefutability of it. Subsequently, the authors have been very active publicizing their views, including testimony to the British House of Commons, speaking on BBC, and a number of other venues. A few articles in the general press have been at least skeptical, but most of the work refuting their arguments has been treated cautiously and quite a few lay observers have taken their arguments as truth rather than speculation.

Critics of these arguments (like myself) have noted that these forecasts have repeatedly proven to be incorrect, including those by Colin Campbell in particular, who as early as 1989 predicted a peak in world oil production for that year. Their rejoinder has been to note past performance is not proof of future performance.

However, to the more explicit charge that their model is mis-specified, the authors have made a more substantive response. The primary flaw in this type of model is the assumption that recoverable petroleum resources are fixed, when the amount of oil which can be recovered depends on both the total amount of oil (a geological factor which is fixed), but also dynamic variables like price, infrastructure, and technology. If the amount of recoverable oil increases, as it has in the past, then the level predicted for peak production must increase and the date pushed further into the future. This has been observed many times from forecasters using this type of model and relying on estimates of ultimately recoverable resources (URR).

But Campbell and Laherrere have asserted that their estimate of URR is both highly accurate and stable because of their calculation using field size estimates showing declining discovery size, moving towards an asymptote. Since they have relied heavily on a privately held database, which is unavailable to the general researcher, it has been difficult for critics to respond to this specifically. [1]

The reliance on discovery trends to estimate URR has received similar criticism as the faulty URR estimates, namely that estimates of field size tend to increase over time with improved recovery methods, better examination of seismic data, infill drilling, and so forth. This means that the size of the recent fields is being underestimated compared to older fields, exaggerating the nearness of the asymptote and understating its size. An analogy would be to plant trees over twenty years and note that the size of the most recently planted trees was shrinking, and concluding that timber resources would become scarce.

Campbell and Laherrere have argued in response that increases in recovery at existing fields are artifacts of accounting rules (which is only partly true) and that they have overcome this flaw by their reliance on a database whose reserve estimates do not suffer from this bias. Since the estimate of ultimately recoverable resources is based on their field size estimates, the question of field growth becomes central to the entire debate. And their primary line of defense has been that their critics lack access to this database.

Last year, the publication of the USGS's World Petroleum Assessment provided one particularly sharp nail in the coffin of this argument, when (among other things) they examined the development of field size estimates over time using the same proprietary database which Campbell and Laherrere relied on, and concluded that reserve growth from existing fields, although uncertain, would be substantial. They published a mean estimate of 612 billion barrels (nearly 30 years of current consumption), significantly increasing their estimate of the world's URR.

But the final nails seem to be located in this summer's little-noticed announcement by IHS Energy the firm whose field database Campbell and Laherrere have utilized of estimated discoveries. According to the firm, discoveries in 2000 were 14.3 billion barrels in 2000, a 10% drop from 1999. This has two interesting implications: first, discoveries have risen sharply the past two years, refuting the statement that poor geology, rather than lack of access to the most prospective areas in OPEC, has kept discoveries low for the past three decades. But also, this implies that discoveries in the past two years have amounted to nearly 20% of the total undiscovered oil which Campbell and Laherrere argued remain!

Undoubtedly they and others will argue that this is due to the firm's inclusion of deepwater reserves, which they are not considering, and that is a factor in the recent robustness of discoveries. However, the primary element behind the greater discovery rates has been the finding of two new super-giant fields in Kazakhstan and Iran. Again, this refutes the argument that discoveries have been relatively low in recent decades due to geological scarcity and supports the optimists' arguments that the lower discoveries are partly due to reduced drilling in the Middle East after the 1970s nationalizations.

And the most crucial fact is actually IHS Energy's reference to earlier discoveries. They have revised their estimates of remaining reserves at end-1991 to 1200 billion barrels, implying that oil discovered to that date was close to 1900 billion barrels (since about 675 billion barrels had been produced). This despite the Campbell/Laherrere argument that their data does not experience revisions due to their reliance on P50 (50% probability) estimates, compared to P90 (90% probability) used in the US and by many US oil companies. While there remain uncertainties about future field reserve growth versus historical growth, it becomes clear that it is still continuing and the arguments that they had corrected for the problem are fallacious at best.

Indeed, the sheer size of the revisions are themselves significant. Although I lack access to historical IHS Energy estimates, Campbell and Laherrere had placed "back-dated" reserves in the early 1990s at barely over 1000 billion barrels in their 1998 article. This implies (to be generous) an increase due to revisions of 150 billion barrels or more in a mere five years: 30% more than actual consumption! It means (as I have repeatedly argued) that their discovery trend curves are misleading, because the more recent numbers were understated, and in the future will likely be too low again. The method they use is flawed because of this definitional mistake.

Note also that the amount discovered to 1991 (which would include only minimal deepwater discoveries) is actually significantly greater than the two now estimate would ever be discovered. In fact, IHS Energy puts current reserves at 1100 billion barrels, which, with past production, yields almost 2000 billion barrels, about 10% or 200 billion barrels over the 1800 billion barrels which the duo have confidently predicted would be the ultimate total. Presumably we can expect them to make yet another upwards revision in their URR estimate. Indeed, despite fears of declining discoveries, estimated recoverable resources --even by pessimists have grown faster than consumption. This can hardly be argued as a sign of resource scarcity.

There are many other arguments that have made up part of this debate, and I have tried to deal with each of them in the articles cited below, as well as further forthcoming work. But while we need be concerned about quite a number of issues related to petroleum supply depletion, change in reserve growth, concentration of production in politically stable areas a possible near-term peak in production (conventional or otherwise) is not one of them. It takes a lot of nails to close a coffin, but the size and quality of these will hopefully ensure that it remains closed.

[dannno]

maybe the fact that Ruppert supports global warming should make you rethink your stance on global warming, not peak oil.

Dude.. the OP did a college project about global warming and why we are doomed... now he's changed his mind.. It's not like he hasn't looked into it.. I'm in the same camp as the OP as I used to believe global warming to some degree and was more of a leftist environmentalist than a property rights protecting environmentalist that I am today.

[MelissaWV]

If I had a dick as small as yours I would say the same to you.

Anyone have real answers to an otherwise serious discussion?

I don't have a dick, nor do I have nuts to stomp on, so why not?

Ian, part of the trouble with peak oil isn't the science or the fact that oil is finite. It's that you're trying to measure just those couple of things. Has our refining gotten more efficient? Will it in the future? Will we depend less upon oil? Will there be a dramatic drop in population? Will the earth heat, or cool, to an extent that it means our use will alter greatly? Will we be hit by a meteor, hence use no oil after that date (unless cockroaches start using oil, and wouldn't it be hilarious to see them driving around in their little cars...)?

At some point, yeah, we will have reached the "peak". We won't really know that until hindsight sets in, and that will either be after enough people are dead that no one will care, or when we are using alternatives to such an extent we will have caused the ebb ourselves. I really doubt the oil is going to ever actually run out. There is A LOT of it out there. There are also alternatives that will eventually find a way to become profitable and sensible enough to get trendy.

You said "harder and more expensive to draw from the ground" and the assumption is that you are comparing it to the cost one would incur before. However, perhaps it should be compared to other fuels rather than itself. At the point that oil becomes harder and more expensive to draw, refine, transport, and distribute than another form of fuel, it's going to go downhill. It might, at that point, be cheaper to draw, refine, transport, and distribute than it ever has in history (adjusted for inflation, etc.), but because it is not the best option, it becomes used less.

Perhaps it's just the parameters of the question which are too rigid for modern reality :)

[torchbearer]

I don't have a dick, nor do I have nuts to stomp on, so why not?

Ian, part of the trouble with peak oil isn't the science or the fact that oil is finite. It's that you're trying to measure just those couple of things. Has our refining gotten more efficient? Will it in the future? Will we depend less upon oil? Will there be a dramatic drop in population? Will the earth heat, or cool, to an extent that it means our use will alter greatly? Will we be hit by a meteor, hence use no oil after that date (unless cockroaches start using oil, and wouldn't it be hilarious to see them driving around in their little cars...)?

At some point, yeah, we will have reached the "peak". We won't really know that until hindsight sets in, and that will either be after enough people are dead that no one will care, or when we are using alternatives to such an extent we will have caused the ebb ourselves. I really doubt the oil is going to ever actually run out. There is A LOT of it out there. There are also alternatives that will eventually find a way to become profitable and sensible enough to get trendy.

You said "harder and more expensive to draw from the ground" and the assumption is that you are comparing it to the cost one would incur before. However, perhaps it should be compared to other fuels rather than itself. At the point that oil becomes harder and more expensive to draw, refine, transport, and distribute than another form of fuel, it's going to go downhill. It might, at that point, be cheaper to draw, refine, transport, and distribute than it ever has in history (adjusted for inflation, etc.), but because it is not the best option, it becomes used less.

Perhaps it's just the parameters of the question which are too rigid for modern reality :)

great response.
sorry to hear about the loss of your dick and nuts.

[MelissaWV]

great response.
sorry to hear about the loss of your dick and nuts.

'sokay. I'm sure the dick is dating someone new ;) (inside joke)

[Ian A.]

Has our refining gotten more efficient? Will it in the future? Will we depend less upon oil?

Oil extraction is getting more efficient every day! But we're talking about NET energy: the energy it takes extracting the oil, versus the energy you get back.

It's like a sandbox full of oil. Sure you can easily suck the oil out with a straw if you had lots of time on your hands. But after you pass the half-way point, it becomes harder and harder. You might try new technologies like heating up the sandbox to make the oil rise, or simply grab the sand and boil it. But all this takes time, effort and money. I also don't think there is any substance that has the same net energy as oil. Oil is a miracle.

I will say, though, that bossman's post looks interesting. One of that article's arguments is that oil reserves are only known to PRIVATE oil companies, so they are not available to any geologist. So we can only rely on ASPO estimates--much like relying only on the IPCC with climate change.

[MelissaWV]

Oil extraction is getting more efficient every day! But we're talking about NET energy: the energy it takes extracting the oil, versus the energy you get back.

It's like a sandbox full of oil. Sure you can easily suck the oil out with a straw if you had lots of time on your hands. But after you pass the half-way point, it becomes harder and harder. You might try new technologies like heating up the sandbox to make the oil rise, or simple grab the sand and boil it. But all this takes time, effort and money. I also don't think there is any substance that has the same net energy as oil. Oil is a miracle.

I will say, though, that bossman's post looks interesting. One of that article's arguments is that oil reserves are only known to PRIVATE oil companies, so they are not available to any geologist. So we can only rely on ASPO estimates--much like relying only on the IPCC with climate change.

I understand we're discussing NET energy, hence the sum of my questions :) And yes, we have no idea how much total oil there is, or how any number of factors will evolve over the years, or what alternatives will exist. I think Peak Oil is akin to worrying how many Skittles the navel of a space alien could hold... it's a neat question, but it doesn't really accomplish too much.

[dannno]

I will say, though, that bossman's post looks interesting. One of that article's arguments is that oil reserves are only known to PRIVATE oil companies, so they are not available to any geologist. So we can only rely on ASPO estimates--much like relying only on the IPCC with climate change.

Where's Zippy. I'd like to know what he thinks about this. He's pretty pro-establishment when it comes to these subjects (well, a lot of subjects actually).

[YumYum]

It seems to me that you are in a better position to answer those questions than anybody on this board, since you have done extensive research. I was told that deep in the Earth there sits a 1,000,000,000 ton chunk of gold waiting to be discovered, and if you drill through the gold you will hit an oil reserve bigger than the Pacific Ocean. I was also told that all that smog in Los Angeles is collected late at night and turned into crack cocaine.

[BenIsForRon]

I understand we're discussing NET energy, hence the sum of my questions :) And yes, we have no idea how much total oil there is, or how any number of factors will evolve over the years, or what alternatives will exist. I think Peak Oil is akin to worrying how many Skittles the navel of a space alien could hold... it's a neat question, but it doesn't really accomplish too much.

So you think everything would be OK if worldwide production decreased by 10% in the next three years? I'm not saying it will, but it is well within the realm of possiblity.

[Ian A.]

And yes, we have no idea how much total oil there is, or how any number of factors will evolve over the years, or what alternatives will exist.

If Peak Oil is true--and it's imminent--then the creation of new technologies over the years is irrelevant because the NAS said that to avoid economic consequences of Peak Oil you need to need to make changes 25 years earlier.

[johnrocks]

Because if it's true, people need to focus on changing their lifestyle now. If certain people make the right decisions soon enough, they won't starve or be without power.



No, but A. we need a new thread since this is a popular subject at the moment, and B I saw little refutation of the science behind Peak Oil. That's what this thread is about.



Do you have a link to this information?

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/about-hydrates/about_hydrates.htm

[MelissaWV]

So you think everything would be OK if worldwide production decreased by 10% in the next three years? I'm not saying it will, but it is well within the realm of possiblity.

This (and Ian's post thereafter) are still just conjecture. That's why I say it's a bit moot. "OK" is relative, for instance. Would things get awfully rough awfully fast? Of course. Would those countries that have the oil press their luck and try to enforce their whims? They do now, so I see no reason they'd pause during a crisis. We see artificial fluxuations like that even now, and yeah it has an effect.

We could be a very long way off from "Peak Oil" if there are ways that are cost effective to extract oil from untapped reserves, and that is where technology comes into play. Think of a range of oil we will mark with a green light, being that it is cost efficient to extract it and go through the entire process for the generally-accepted (OPEC-set, but I digress) returns. Now, think of introducing a new technology that extends that range of oil we'll mark with a green light. There is not "more oil" on earth, but there is more oil within the range of reasonable extraction. On the flipside, if there's a plate shift that causes a previously oft-used reserve to become largely inaccessible, that is going to shrink the range of oil that is efficiently accessible. Artificially, a nation may decide to hoard the oil and not do anything with it, which takes it out of the pool for everyone except that nation (and if they're not sharing it, then it's pretty much out of play anyhow).

Anyhow, that's just my view of things.

[MsDoodahs]

Russia is right, the US is wrong. Oil is of abiogenic origin.

Bossman covered it in post 23 in this thread. :)

Also...

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.17d.html

"Brazil Makes World’s Biggest Oil Discovery in 30 Years

Brazil's Petrobras has discovered the largest light crude Oil Field since the Mexican Cantarell Field in 1976. The massive find is in the same area off the coast of Brazil as the restly discovered Tupi field which is beleived to hold 8 billion barrels of extractable crude. The new Sugar Loaf Field discovery is 5 times larger than Tupi and could signal an end to declining oil production around the World."

:)

[EndDaFed]

"According to officials at Petrobras, Brazil's state-run oil and gas company, the Sugar Loaf field may produce up to 40 billion barrels of oil. "

What a joke. The United States alone consumes 6 billion barrels a year. The world as a whole consumes 30 billion barrels a year. Unless they find a new field like this every year we are fucked.

[EndDaFed]

Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower


The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

[Oyate]

Ha! Now little one you begin to perceive your mistake as the wings of my true purpose cloud over your tiny life, yea as my dark arms encircle you and you realize with dread that I hold you and everyone and everything you hold dear in the palm of my hand.

Only now do you realize your dread mistake.

Tremble little one, tremble and breathe my name with dread for I walk among ye.

Wait, which thread was this? Sorry, wrong window. Peak Oil sucks, so do you and so does your grandmother. BUY MY SOLAR AND SELF SUFFICIENCY PRODUCTS SUCKERS!

This message brought to you by Precious Roy and Carl's Jr. Carl's Jr; FUCK YOU, I'M EATING A HAMBURGER.

[EndDaFed]

It's always easy to resort to hyperbole instead of focusing on the facts.

[torchbearer]

It's always easy to resort to hyperbole instead of focusing on the facts.

fact is we don't know how much supply we have left.
I can tell you as a son of an oilman, we haven't scratched the surface.
in louisiana alone there is much oil that hasn't even been drilled yet.

then re-work indies are finding all the wells that have been written off as "dry" are now producing again after given time to "Rest".

if i had the capital, i'd get into re-working wells. we are finding that they fill up again after time.

[Oyate]

It's always easy to resort to hyperbole instead of focusing on the facts.

For the record, on this thread I have not resorted to hyperbole nor ad-hominems although OP did. What I did was merely to bait OP into it.

Hey OP, I am Oyate. Do you feel the life leaving your body and nurturing my spirit people until we suck the life out of you like the wraith on Stargate Atlantis or the multipe episodes that you got teleported through time or replicated by dimensional shifts or perhaps by replicants?

Because it was all TRUE.

I OWN YOUR SOUL. YOU EXIST TO SERVE ME.

Minion, the first thing you must learn is I take my Earl Grey tea with milk and honey in the mornings.

Put on your sexy uniform and report for duty to the headmistress.

[djinwa]

I have found that most people try to avoid the subject of limited energy for the same reason they try to avoid the concept of limited government. The possibility of losing the relatively free ride we're enjoying is too painful to contemplate.

People might actually have to get off their asses occasionally and move their body.

I live and work in the country. Had to go to the big city last night around rush hour and could not believe that humans deal with that every day. Amazing the number of cars crawling along the freeway.

From a certain perspective, I think we're crazy.

[Bman]

Until there is a clear cut presentation on exactly how oil comes to be, you cannot be proven wrong on peak oil, neither can you be proven right.

Peak oil has been adopted as a concept because it is so easy to use to drive up prices. Also easy to make sense. If you drink from a cup it will eventually go empty. Problem is they say they're not 100% sure on how it got there. My opinion is that it got there much easier than they make it out. Plus the larger problem is using resources to locate oil.

[torchbearer]

I have found that most people try to avoid the subject of limited energy for the same reason they try to avoid the concept of limited government. The possibility of losing the relatively free ride we're enjoying is too painful to contemplate.

People might actually have to get off their asses occasionally and move their body.

I live and work in the country. Had to go to the big city last night around rush hour and could not believe that humans deal with that every day. Amazing the number of cars crawling along the freeway.

From a certain perspective, I think we're crazy.

what the future holds is different from what the present presents.
if we have a free market, i no longer worry about how i will survive... for it there is a demand- the market will provide.
if their is no gasoline, it will provide a subsitute.
all matter is energy- all energy is matter. E=MC^2.
Tesla motors has excellent electric vehicles and the sun doesn't seem to have a shortage of energy. So i'm not afraid of the future. i look forward to it.

[tangent4ronpaul]

This (and Ian's post thereafter) are still just conjecture. That's why I say it's a bit moot. "OK" is relative, for instance. Would things get awfully rough awfully fast? Of course. Would those countries that have the oil press their luck and try to enforce their whims? They do now, so I see no reason they'd pause during a crisis. We see artificial fluxuations like that even now, and yeah it has an effect.

We could be a very long way off from "Peak Oil" if there are ways that are cost effective to extract oil from untapped reserves, and that is where technology comes into play. Think of a range of oil we will mark with a green light, being that it is cost efficient to extract it and go through the entire process for the generally-accepted (OPEC-set, but I digress) returns. Now, think of introducing a new technology that extends that range of oil we'll mark with a green light. There is not "more oil" on earth, but there is more oil within the range of reasonable extraction. On the flipside, if there's a plate shift that causes a previously oft-used reserve to become largely inaccessible, that is going to shrink the range of oil that is efficiently accessible. Artificially, a nation may decide to hoard the oil and not do anything with it, which takes it out of the pool for everyone except that nation (and if they're not sharing it, then it's pretty much out of play anyhow).

Anyhow, that's just my view of things.

Related:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6082464/World-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as-China-eyes-ban-on-rare-metal-exports.html


World faces hi-tech crunch as China eyes ban on rare metal exports
Beijing is drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons.

China mines over 95pc of the world?s rare earth minerals and is looking to hoard its resources.

A draft report by China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs.

China mines over 95pc of the world’s rare earth minerals, mostly in Inner Mongolia. The move to hoard reserves is the clearest sign to date that the global struggle for diminishing resources is shifting into a new phase. Countries may find it hard to obtain key materials at any price.

Alistair Stephens, from Australia’s rare metals group Arafura, said his contacts in China had been shown a copy of the draft -- `Rare Earths Industry Devlopment Plan 2009-2015’. Any decision will be made by China’s State Council.

“This isn’t about the China holding the world to ransom. They are saying we need these resources to develop our own economy and achieve energy efficiency, so go find your own supplies”, he said.

Mr Stephens said China had put global competitors out of business in the early 1990s by flooding the market, leading to the closure of the biggest US rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California - now being revived by Molycorp Minerals.

New technologies have since increased the value and strategic importance of these metals, but it will take years for fresh supply to come on stream from deposits in Australia, North America, and South Africa. The rare earth family are hard to find, and harder to extract.

Mr Stephens said Arafura’s project in Western Australia produces terbium, which sells for $800,000 a tonne. It is a key ingredient in low-energy light-bulbs. China needs all the terbium it produces as the country switches wholesale from tungsten bulbs to the latest low-wattage bulbs that cut power costs by 40pc.

No replacement has been found for neodymium that enhances the power of magnets at high heat and is crucial for hard-disk drives, wind turbines, and the electric motors of hybrid cars. Each Toyota Prius uses 25 pounds of rare earth elements. Cerium and lanthanum are used in catalytic converters for diesel engines. Europium is used in lasers.

Blackberries, iPods, mobile phones, plams TVs, navigation systems, and air defence missiles all use a sprinkling of rare earth metals. They are used to filter viruses and bacteria from water, and cleaning up Sarin gas and VX nerve agents.

Arafura, Mountain Pass, and Lynas Corp in Australia, will be able to produce some 50,000 tonnes of rare earth metals by the mid-decade but that is not enough to meet surging world demand.

New uses are emerging all the time, and some promise quantum leaps in efficiency. The Tokyo Institute of Technology has made a breakthrough in superconductivity using rare earth metals that lower the friction on power lines and could slash electricity leakage.

The Japanese government has drawn up a “Strategy for Ensuring Stable Supplies of Rare Metals”. It calls for `stockpiling’ and plans for “securing overseas resources’. The West has yet to stir.

-t