The Incipience of a New Dark Age ;)

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
Business week article about the depletion economics of cheap efficient energy procurement.

BW article.

With global oil production virtually stalled in recent years, controversial predictions that the world is fast approaching maximum petroleum output are looking a bit less controversial. At first blush, those concerned about global warming should be delighted. After all, what better way to prod the move toward carbon-free, climate-friendly alternative energy?

But climate change activists have nothing to cheer about. The U.S. is completely unprepared for peak oil, as it's called, and the wrenching adjustments it would entail could easily accelerate global warming as nations turn to coal (see BusinessWeek.com, 4/19/07, "Rx for Earth: Sooner Not Later"). Moreover, regardless of the implications for climate change, peak oil represents a mortal threat to the U.S. economy.

Peak oil refers to the point at which world oil production plateaus before beginning to decline as depletion of the world's remaining reserves offsets ever-increased drilling. Some experts argue that we're already there, and that we won't exceed by much the daily production high of 84.5 million barrels first reached in 2005. If so, global production will bump along near these levels for years before beginning an inexorable decline.

What would that mean? Alternatives are still a decade away from meeting incremental demand for oil. With nothing to fill the gap, global economic growth would slow, stop, and then reverse; international tensions would soar as nations seek access to diminishing supplies, enriching autocratic rulers in unstable oil states; and, unless other sources of energy could be ramped up with extreme haste, the world could plunge into a new Dark Age. Even as faltering economies burned less oil, carbon loading of the atmosphere might accelerate as countries turn to vastly dirtier coal.

GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without original thought from the OP, this thread has been locked.

Anandtech Moderator


 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
There is a reason this article is in Business Week instead of an engineering publication. Business people think small when it comes to technology, with VERY few exceptions, they don't realize that, when properly pushed, technology changes at an extremely rapid pace. The problem is that there isn't a huge push right now, as oil is still cheap and concerns seem far away. But once that becomes less true, alternative energy will take off like you wouldn't believe. Engineers build societies by overcoming the problems of the day, there is nothing special about oil that makes me think that won't happen here.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
/me put tongue in cheek!

I know! We need a higher world population! Let's have even more children and grow our population from 6.5 million to 12 million! Let's allow the population of the United States to double! Not only will we have more oil and refining capacity per capita, but we'll also have a cleaner environment! Let's give citizenship to anyone who wants to live in the United States! Our economy will be great!

/me removes tongue from cheek.

Thanks for posting the link to the Business Week article.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
4
0
The world is freakin' swimming in oil right now. If countries like Saudi Arabia would develop huge fields they have and the political/military problems in countries like Nigeria and Iraq were resolved oil would be 10 per barrel.
The peak oil scare is probably the only time the oil companies and the environmentalists are working together. The oil companies use peak oil warnings as a cover for their actions that increase the price of oil, and the environmentalists use it to encourage alternate energy development and conservation.
Which side is getting pwned(aside from consumers)?
The environmentalists are getting pwned by the oil companies.
Since any real movement towards the environmentalists goals are easily short circuited with either oil company money or manipulation of prices.
I believe we will eventually have to make major changes. It just doesn't need to be done for 20 year or more. If we just took easy action like increase fuel standards, etc we could effect the current prices. Basically we need a way to decrease demand in a matter that is as quick as the changes in supply. Massive oil reserves like the US petroleum reserve whose goal would be to temper prices would help. So would flex fuel cars. So would dual or triple fuel home heating burners.
When it comes time to massively make changes, the technology will be far better able to deal with in 20 years or more than right now.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
The world is freakin' swimming in oil right now. If countries like Saudi Arabia would develop huge fields they have and the political/military problems in countries like Nigeria and Iraq were resolved oil would be 10 per barrel.

Any data to support such a claim as the one quoted above?

An IEA has a report that shows that the last year ouput increased from the Saudi fields was 2005.

I'll try to find the report again.

Rogo
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
The world is freakin' swimming in oil right now. If countries like Saudi Arabia would develop huge fields they have and the political/military problems in countries like Nigeria and Iraq were resolved oil would be 10 per barrel.

Any data to support such a claim as the one quoted above?

An IEA has a report that shows that the last year ouput increased from the Saudi fields was 2005.

I'll try to find the report again.

Rogo

That statement is pretty irrelevant to his point. The fact is that many "unstable" countries still have large supplies of oil remaining but don't have the technology to get at it and won't allow other countries to drill to it either. For example Iran which has the second most oil in the world will not allow Western companies to develop its mines because of its political agenda. Its obviously wrong to suggest that oil will just keep going up and up and up, but there is definitely still decades of oil out there, it will just require an increase in prices. Eventually as oil prices go up and other sources of energy go down there will reach a point where parity is met and oil demand will no longer increase and will eventually fall as it no longer becomes economical to drill for it. However, this is completely different than the belief that one day oil will simply run out and we will have nothing to replace it. Energy prices will gradually increase for ~20 years and then will decline again as the prince point is no longer set be riding oil prices but by falling prices in other energy sources.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
BT

That's the most inane post I've yet read on this forum.

Your opinion means absolutely NOTHING!

LOL!

Rogo
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,365
475
126
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
BT

That's the most inane post I've yet read on this forum.

Your opinion means absolutely NOTHING!

LOL!

Rogo

:disgust:

And yours does?

 

dmens

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2005
2,271
917
136
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession

Except peak oil is just another bad mathematical model used by environmental scaremongers to push their anti-development agendas. The guy who came up with the theory has been revising the peak production date every year, with no justification for any change.

I guess that's the good thing about these long-term models, by the time they are proved wrong, the originator won't be around to be held responsible (see also global warming). Too bad there's plenty of people who'll use the broken model to try to justify all sorts of ridiculous policies.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

Unless you believe that the supply of oil is limitless, it stands to reason that as long as humans continue to use oil that it will eventually run out. Thus, the Peak Oil theory itself is not wrong; it just might be wrong about predicting the exact time of the peak. That doesn't mean that humans won't find better sources of fuel and/or propulsion before it becomes a problem.

One of the concerns is that the world's overall consumption of oil continues to increase as third world countries in Asia develop, increasing the depletion of the oil supply. It might not become a problem for another 50 years, but eventually the supply of oil will dry up.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
The world is freakin' swimming in oil right now. If countries like Saudi Arabia would develop huge fields they have and the political/military problems in countries like Nigeria and Iraq were resolved oil would be 10 per barrel.

Any data to support such a claim as the one quoted above?

An IEA has a report that shows that the last year ouput increased from the Saudi fields was 2005.

I'll try to find the report again.

Rogo

That statement is pretty irrelevant to his point. The fact is that many "unstable" countries still have large supplies of oil remaining but don't have the technology to get at it and won't allow other countries to drill to it either. For example Iran which has the second most oil in the world will not allow Western companies to develop its mines because of its political agenda. Its obviously wrong to suggest that oil will just keep going up and up and up, but there is definitely still decades of oil out there, it will just require an increase in prices. Eventually as oil prices go up and other sources of energy go down there will reach a point where parity is met and oil demand will no longer increase and will eventually fall as it no longer becomes economical to drill for it. However, this is completely different than the belief that one day oil will simply run out and we will have nothing to replace it. Energy prices will gradually increase for ~20 years and then will decline again as the prince point is no longer set be riding oil prices but by falling prices in other energy sources.

You can add the United States to that list. Lots of oil, nobody allowed to touch it.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,895
32,693
136
Whenever I see one of these articles that are the literary equivalent of a bum standing on a street corner with a signboard proclaiming "The end is nigh" I have to shake my head.

If the media isn't scaring you it obviously isn't doing its job.:roll:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I don?t believe that we are anywhere near peak oil. There are tons of known fields that have yet to be tapped because they are in difficult (expensive) locations, such as deep water fields, that where not profitable to explore in the past. As prices remain relatively high it becomes feasible to explore those fields. Not to mention that there are tons of fields just in US waters that they simply are not allowed to drill.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Business week article about the depletion economics of cheap efficient energy procurement.

GIVEN SUCH UNPLEASANT possibilities, you'd think peak oil would be a national obsession

if there was like a hint of truth to it we might be concerned.

shouldn't your type be voting for Ron Paul?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe the next big era will be the era of alternate energy. You see a world doomed to die for lack of energy, and I see a bright new tomorrow where anything is possible.
 

Skotty

Senior member
Dec 29, 2006
232
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Necessity is the mother of invention. Maybe the next big era will be the era of alternate energy. You see a world doomed to die for lack of energy, and I see a bright new tomorrow where anything is possible.


True, but a Senior Analyst is a Senior Analyst because she can see problems coming and avoid them before they happen. As opposed to the entry level Programmer who will just invent a new program after the old one crashes and loses the company hundreds of millions of dollars.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,219
3,799
75
Originally posted by: Darwin333
I don?t believe that we are anywhere near peak oil. There are tons of known fields that have yet to be tapped because they are in difficult (expensive) locations, such as deep water fields, that where not profitable to explore in the past.
Peak oil doesn't mean there's no oil out there, or that there's no new oil out there. It means that there isn't enough oil out there to satisfy demand (graph). We'll keep finding oil; but at some point it won't be enough to produce a couple million more barrels per day every year.

On the other hand, note that if the US Congress passes the proposed new CAFE standards, they will closely track the projected oil available, maybe as far as ~2020. (Unreferenced, but look up the bill and do the math.) So we do have some time.
As prices remain relatively high it becomes feasible to explore those fields. Not to mention that there are tons of fields just in US waters that they simply are not allowed to drill.
Yes - except, as oil prices rise, so do the costs to explore those difficult fields. There may be a point where it's efficient, but it's not where a naive analysis would place it. That's why oil shale still isn't being mined.
The world is freakin' swimming in oil right now. If countries like Saudi Arabia would develop huge fields they have and the political/military problems in countries like Nigeria and Iraq were resolved oil would be 10 per barrel.
Huge fields they claim they have. Here's a graph of Saudi reserves, projected and reported. There's no actual oversight on reported reserves, so as long as they keep pumping some oil, they can literally hold the line anywhere!

P.S. Here's where I learned about this stuff.

 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
There is plenty of research regarding the output of easy 'crude' (look it up instead of posting stupid comments about 'potential fields'). The problem with projection of depletion is that OPEC (would you like a graph of all other oil producers compared to the OPEC nation?) veils it's potential production, BUT they haven't matched their 2005 output even with global demand growing exponentially.

Also-please try to understand EROI.

You're all fairly intelligent-do your own research.

Rogo