oil economics and peak oil

[mark]

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.peakoil.org/



i'm not one for conspiracy theories, however iv been reading a lot about oil reserves lately, the first webpage (while a bit slanted) is a good synopsis of what a scary amount of financial experts believe to be the most likely outcome of reaching peak oil production over the next few years.

It makes sense too, the recent actions of the US government seem much more sensible (from their point of view) when taking this into account. Funny thing is it wouldn't make a bit of difference who was in power there, left right or green chances are these "resource wars" would eventually kick off anyway in a desperate attempt to prolong their way of life.



so what do you all think? obviously this isn't news, but to put a timescale on it, to predict the early warning signs, etc, sort of makes it more real.

[Jaszalcatraz]

The first link isnt working but I found another site that seems to suggest the same thing.





Although his reasons for believing that "Peak Oil is a realistic problem" are very valid, what he says about the effects of this are totally looney. Atleast in the case of 90% of the earth's population being wiped out.

Apparently a great war will be fought over oil and the population will be wiped out.

One thing is for sure if there ever was a war for oil, it will be the OPEC countries that will be wiped out first. Then as time goes on and before the resources are completely depleted the human race will find another source of energy that is not only cheap to make but also has a diverse usage....something that electricity and solar energy isnt providing as yet.



More thought to follow

[Jasz]

heres the link

http://www.spinninglobe.net/crash.htm

[Jaszalcatraz]

Intermediate thought.......consider the following statement



In his just-released book, Out of Gas: The End of Oil, Dr. Goodstein argues forcefully that the worldwide production of oil will peak soon, possibly within this decade. That will be followed by declining availability of fossil fuels that could plunge the world into global conflicts as nations struggle to capture their piece of a shrinking pie.



I think I should join the army after engineering.....might be great fun over the years.

[mark]

a couple of slightly more optimistic views.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3555.html



actually the wikipedia entry for "peak oil" has loads of links down the bottom to websites that both support and deny this. it's definately a contraversial issue, one where the experts have a large chance of getting it totally wrong, but an interesting taste of things to come perhaps.

As for finding an alternate source of energy, will it maintain the same standard of living as oil has? either way there will be major social change.



i would put money on our global civilisation declining in the next 100 years. somethings got to give.

[mark]

It's a bitch, the more research you do on this the less sure you become of what's going to happen. there are people who have spent their entire lives studying economics, oil reserves and politics on both sides of the arguement. hope for the best, expect the worst i suppose.

[Jaszalcatraz]

i would put money on our global civilisation declining in the next 100 years. somethings got to give.

Definetly.......question is ....how big a role will oil play in it?

or maybe more pertinent....how big a role will natural resources play?

who will be the first to succumb to the pressure?

which country is likely to be least affected by it?

who is the next superpower?



my answer for the last two questions is Russia

they have approx 35% of the worlds oil and yet contribute about 2 % to oil production (got those numbers from some illustrated atlas i read years ago). Not too sure bout the number but pretty sure all that frigid Siberia will finally be worth its weight in gold.

[mark]

The first link isnt working but I found another site that seems to suggest the same thing.


Although his reasons for believing that "Peak Oil is a realistic problem" are very valid, what he says about the effects of this are totally looney. Atleast in the case of 90% of the earth's population being wiped out.
Apparently a great war will be fought over oil and the population will be wiped out.
One thing is for sure if there ever was a war for oil, it will be the OPEC countries that will be wiped out first. Then as time goes on and before the resources are completely depleted the human race will find another source of energy that is not only cheap to make but also has a diverse usage....something that electricity and solar energy isnt providing as yet.

More thought to follow

well the 90% figure would be from starvation, not war. Our methods of agriculture are so heavly dependant on oil that we couldn't possibly feed everyone if this happened.

The world pop in 1859 (when they first struck oil and began mining it) was 1 billion, oil power is the only reason that this could increase 6 fold in 140 years. i read somewhere that 10 calories of oil must be burned to produce 1 calorie of food on your plate.

[lizard king]

a couple of slightly more optimistic views.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3555.html


i would put money on our global civilisation declining in the next 100 years. somethings got to give.

i dont agree with u Mark. for i believe in the fact that human is a very selfish beast and he would creep to anythign to save his ass. and we all know that necessity is the mother of all invention. so if at a point if there arises a necessity that we have to go for soem thing to replace oil. we ll defintiely do it. and about the global civilizations coming to a decline, i would say it is all relative. even in today s world, what u might consider a civilised , techonologically advanced society might be insanity and chaos to million others. gods must be crazy is just a good example of this.

i believe in the fact that civilisations never perish, they just destroy themselves to be born again.

[mark]

i believe in the fact that civilisations never perish, they just destroy themselves to be born again.

pheonix from flames like kind of thing? i don't think we really disagree, you say theres going to be some sort of revolution if it comes to it, i agree with that. Necessity is the mother of invention certainly, however i feel our greed and shortsightedness will back us into a corner we won't easily invent our way out of. I'm not saying we won't survive, i'm saying that a large proportion of the global population will starve. put it this way, it isn't going to happen overnight, the first signs of trouble and pop drop will be in developing countries in Africa, etc. The people in a position to be inventive (developed countries, and emerging superpowers like India and China) won't be first in the firing line, therefore won't begin to work the way out until its too late.

[lizard king]

i believe in the fact that civilisations never perish, they just destroy themselves to be born again.

pheonix from flames like kind of thing? i don't think we really disagree, you say theres going to be some sort of revolution if it comes to it, i agree with that. Necessity is the mother of invention certainly, however i feel our greed and shortsightedness will back us into a corner we won't easily invent our way out of. I'm not saying we won't survive, i'm saying that a large proportion of the global population will starve. put it this way, it isn't going to happen overnight, the first signs of trouble and pop drop will be in developing countries in Africa, etc. The people in a position to be inventive (developed countries, and emerging superpowers like India and China) won't be first in the firing line, therefore won't begin to work the way out until its too late.

do u really think the effect would first be felt in the developing countries of africa? on the contrary, i feel that the major influence, if there has to be one will be on the developed countries. development is the inverse measure of adaptability, like even from the days before the europeans knew the use of spice to preserve meat during the great wars and the industrial revolution. we in the east , did nt really have a need for an induustrial revolution then, we were adaptable then, and "less developed" as compared to the then europeans in terms of techonilogiocal advancement, and thats the main reason we were nt really effected, economically or socially during the 2 world wars, even though the world took an about turn then and went into the great depression.



so what i think is, the first countries to be hit by the oil crisis are the states and probably India and China, just for the cos of numbers, but the other developing countries or under developed ountries, it would nt really make any big difference, they were suffering before, they ll continue to suffer, there would nt really be a major change in their life style.

Banana republics rule!

[Jaszalcatraz]

Totally disagree LK.....it is these banana republics that'll be affected first. No matter who you are you need oil for life. The third world countires also need oil for their agriculture and not having enough money to buy them mass emigration'll take place.

the countries with the new age economies are more likely to survive the whole ordeal but loss of life is a gaurantee.

all the talk of the "triumph of the human spirit" is also quite unlikely since it'l be the richer nations implementiing those alternative sources of energy just to maintain their position in the world economy. As time goes on more and more countires will get aligned with each other....why do you think the EU has been formed? to put up a united front against this exact kinda possible problems. All the Regional Cooperation bonds will be reforged and collaborative research will definetly take place. The team with all the money will win.



The easiest possible solutions is for more and more dictators to come into the picture. A return to the war era will in the long run help humanity. The whole process of war itself will consume a lot of oil but the war will also trigger desperate research into possible energy solutions.

[mark]

I agree with Jasz, the "winners" or the people who'll be least fu#Ked are the countries with large standing armies, or the potential for large standing armies, and the conventional weapons to hold positions once attained. China, US, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, etc.

Nuclear warfare would be probably used to take out capital cities but i would imagine after that it would be self defeating, resourses (and arrable land) would be too important to contaminate with radiation. Lots of recyclable plant lying around cities (not that the oil to recycle it would be available but stockpiling steel in anticipation of some sort of energy breakthrough (or upon reaching the point where the population becomes sustainable again) would be important)



Actually if it goes far enough it might be hand-to-hand combat. that'd be hilarious (in a tragic sort of way) India vs. China, 100 million people fighting armed with bow and arrow, spear, and sword.





ok unlikely but would make great sci-fi.

[Jaszalcatraz]

Once the oil shortage starts there is only one way for a country to become powerful. The Dictator (now that we've assumed that they'll control the future) of the country passes a public government order forcing all people between the age of 24-34 to work on farmlands. That way work done by machines will now be done by groups of strong men.

As the produce increases, the countries can barter the food in exchange for resources.

Nuclear war is highly unlikely.......maybe crop-dusters full of poison will do the trick.

[lizard king]

with the oil reserves nearing extinction, do u think what Iran is doing is a good thing? trying to impliment the use of nuclear fuel, which is beign branded as acts of terrorism by the rest of the modern world?

[CtrlAltDel]

with proper safe guards, nuke fuel is the future for energy....and hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles....

[DQ]

with the oil reserves nearing extinction, do u think what Iran is doing is a good thing? trying to impliment the use of nuclear fuel, which is beign branded as acts of terrorism by the rest of the modern world?

Donno what they are trying to acheive there though. Probably the barnding of terrosit of a state is the new US policy in securing more oil reserves.



The pinch of the first war on terror is already reflecting on an average house hold in the west, it will take some time to reflect on the economies.



The price of fuel over the past few weeks has already changed the way you eat drink and socialise.

[mark]

with proper safe guards, nuke fuel is the future for energy....and hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles....

not a chance. world reserves of uranium/plutonium won't last long at all if it's the primary source of fuel. and i've read several reports on fuel cells, and it seems they will be very, very expensive. there's been extensive research going on since the 50s-60s US space program, and the projected price hasn't come down much.

[lizard king]

heard about reaping the power of the oceans to generate power?

i think that would be a nice option actually.



n there was one other study, i am not sure if it ll materialise, but they were proved that energy could actually be harnessed from still water, soome surface tension related stuff.



i am sure mankind will come up with some thng or the other, if the scenario comes that we have no more petrol.

until then, lets wait and watch the americans drive their 5 or 6 L cars and trucks paying a very minimal price for their "gas". and i still dont know why they call it gas.

[CtrlAltDel]

i still dont know why they call it gas.

it stands for 'gasolene'...and i still dont know why they call petrol gasolene

[akhilis2cool]

with proper safe guards, nuke fuel is the future for energy....and hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles....

not a chance. world reserves of uranium/plutonium won't last long at all if it's the primary source of fuel. and i've read several reports on fuel cells, and it seems they will be very, very expensive. there's been extensive research going on since the 50s-60s US space program, and the projected price hasn't come down much.

Well, I believe the future of energy is the Sun.



People have tried making fuel cell driven cars...but they are too expensive and also the manufacturing of these vehicles leads to the emission of certain green house gases.

[mark]

with proper safe guards, nuke fuel is the future for energy....and hydrogen fuel cell for automobiles....

not a chance. world reserves of uranium/plutonium won't last long at all if it's the primary source of fuel. and i've read several reports on fuel cells, and it seems they will be very, very expensive. there's been extensive research going on since the 50s-60s US space program, and the projected price hasn't come down much.

Well, I believe the future of energy is the Sun.

People have tried making fuel cell driven cars...but they are too expensive and also the manufacturing of these vehicles leads to the emission of certain green house gases.

yeah, the sun, or as LK said, the sea. i highly doubt we'll develop these technologies enough before oil runs out though.