The End.

[StrongTurd]

How does it prove your point when IIRC your last end of the world scenario was peak oil with oil prices at $200+/barrel etc?

Classic PO theory predicts exactly this. Heinberg, Kunstler, Savinar, Simmons etc. all wrote about this phenomenon years ago. It's on YouTube if you care to have a look. I've also mentioned this earlier in this thread.

Kunstler's latest blog sums it up far better than I could so I'll leave you with this extract:

Many were stunned this year to witness the parabolic rise and fall of oil prices up to nearly $150 and then back around $36 by Christmas time. Quite a ride. I said in The Long Emergency that volatility would be the hallmark of post peak oil because it was obvious that advanced economies could not absorb super high prices and would crash in response; that at some point after crashing, these economies would respond to the new lower oil price, resume their cheap oil habits, and build to another price rise. . . and crash again. . . in a declension of ever-lower industrial activity.

What I probably didn't realize at the time was how destructive this cycling between low-high-and-low oil prices would actually be in the first instance of it, and what a toll it would take right off the bat. We can see now that our first journey through the cycle took out the most fragile of the complex systems we depend on: capital finance. As a result, a huge amount of capital (say $14 trillion) has evaporated out of the system, never to be seen again (and never to be deployed for productive purposes). It will be harder for the USA to rebound from the grievous injury to this crucial part of the overall system, and Europe has foundered similarly -- though the European nations are not burdened to the same degree by the awful liabilities of suburbia.

Even if these advanced economies -- throw in Japan too -- remain moribund, the price and supply prospects for oil look ominous. My own guess is that the price of oil has overshot on the low end just as it overshot on the high end, and that, when all is said and done, we'll still see an upwardly trending price line over the long haul. The plunge, which began right after the $147 peak in July 2008, was as much the result of banks, hedge funds, and individuals dumping oil investments and positions to raise cash as it was a matter of the markets predicting a sharp fall-off in economic activity (and supposedly oil consumption). The truth is that demand destruction for oil in the USA has been surprising mild compared to the drop in price. Jim Hansen's Master Resource Report says that gasoline consumption dropped from 9.29 million barrels a day in 2007 to 8.99 million barrels a day for 2008. That's not much of a fall-off, especially compared to the price drop.

As Julian Darley of the Post Carbon Institute put it recently: "There won't be any energy bail-out." And, as many other people have noted, the recent plunge in oil prices strongly implies future supply destruction, since so many planned oil projects have been suspended or cancelled because they are economic losers at $40-a-barrel (or even $70). Even projects well underway, such as Canadian tar sand production, have been scaled back or shut down because they don't make sense at current prices. Some of these other newer projects will now never get underway -- they have missed their window of opportunity with so much capital leaving the system -- and so the hope of offsetting very-near-future depletions in old giant oil fields looks dimmer and dimmer.

Those depletions are very serious. For instance, Mexico's super-giant Cantarell oil field, the second-largest ever discovered after Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field, has shown a 30 percent depletion rate in the past year alone. (Pemex had forecast a 15 percent rate entering the year.) Cantarell provides over 60 percent of Mexico's total production, and Mexico is America's third largest source of imports -- just after Saudi Arabia (#2) and Canada (#1). Obviously, Mexico soon will lose its ability to export oil, and as that occurs, America is going to feel more than pinch -- more like a two-by-four upside the head. In short, remorseless depletion is underway and we are less likely now than even a year ago, to make up for it.

At some point, then, demand, even if slightly lower, will catch up with declining supply. My prediction for 2009 is that we will see two things occur, possibly at the same time: a resumption of rising prices, and spot shortages. I say this because the global economic fiasco is sure to produce geopolitical friction, and inasmuch as America has to import almost three-quarters of the oil we use, the prospect for trouble is great.

The tragic part of all this, of course, is that the temporary plunge in oil prices has prompted an incurious American public to assume, once again, that the global oil predicament is some kind of a fraud. Given the flood tide of fraud they have been subject to in banking and investment matters, I suppose you can't blame them from thinking that everything is some kind of a scam. Given feeble car sales this season, there are reports that an increasing percentage of those sold now are are trucks and SUVs.

 

[Syndyre]

So the high oil prices are blamed for causing the current market crash? I haven't seen any evidence of that? Oil prices will almost definitely rise in future though, futures prices are already higher and declining supply doesn't help. Its just a big jump to go from rising prices to the anarchy and societal collapse that peak oil theorists assume will follow.

If anything this year has shown that people can adapt relatively quickly to higher prices. (Assuming the financial crisis wasn't caused by high oil prices.)

Anyway, I'm out of here, happy new year everyone.

 

[noxibox]

So the high oil prices are blamed for causing the current market crash? I haven't seen any evidence of that?

It wasn't. It would be a big stretch for anyone to try to prove it was.

Oil prices will almost definitely rise in future though, futures prices are already higher and declining supply doesn't help.

Previous high prices were due to deliberately constricted supply and speculation. The more you speculate that the price will rise the more it rises as long as demand holds. Ultimately demand fell, prices dropped. Now OPEC is seeking to constrain supply further to bring prices back up. Or are peak oil proponents going to tell us that they suddenly have even less oil to pump? That is essentially their previous claim - output was not reduced due to greed, but because they had no more oil to supply.

 

[BrrIan]

Totally incorect. Hong Kong ranked number one in the Economic Freedom index of the World: 2008 Annual Report by the independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

And they doubtless ignore everything that says different. Hong Kong's economy is not run the way you think it is. Despite Hong Kong being raised up as a bastion of economic freedom it is not. It is in fact a very tightly controlled and managed economy. Just look at land ownership. Or the way construction contracts are handed out by government.

liberating individuals and families from dependence on government

Which most certainly does not apply to Hong Kong.

 

[StrongTurd]

So the high oil prices are blamed for causing the current market crash? I haven't seen any evidence of that?

Neither have I seen any evidence to indicate that it has NOT.

Oil prices will almost definitely rise in future though, futures prices are already higher and declining supply doesn't help. Its just a big jump to go from rising prices to the anarchy and societal collapse that peak oil theorists assume will follow.

All in good time, sir. As a matter of fact, this depression is unraveling faster than the one in the 30's, if you look at economic indicators (I posted a few links recently). It took more than four years since the crash of '29 before the economy reached its lowest level.

If anything this year has shown that people can adapt relatively quickly to higher prices. (Assuming the financial crisis wasn't caused by high oil prices.)

Quite the contrary, I have seen no evidence of that at all. You might argue that the highest oil prices ever recorded and the collapse of Wall Street three months later are mere coincidence. I don't. The two are directly linked.

I believe that the vast majority of people will never actually "get" peak oil. They will keep on looking at the symptoms and never realise that the cause of all their hardships is actually dwindling energy supplies. Makes no difference though, as the devastating effect on their lives will be exactly the same either way. I'm fine with this and I do not go around preaching PO to anybody. In fact, I doubt that any of my friends know that I'm PO-aware. It does heavily influence the decisions that I make in life, though.

 

[Syndyre]

It wasn't. It would be a big stretch for anyone to try to prove it was.

Exactly.

Previous high prices were due to deliberately constricted supply and speculation. The more you speculate that the price will rise the more it rises as long as demand holds. Ultimately demand fell, prices dropped. Now OPEC is seeking to constrain supply further to bring prices back up. Or are peak oil proponents going to tell us that they suddenly have even less oil to pump? That is essentially their previous claim - output was not reduced due to greed, but because they had no more oil to supply.

Yeah, there was definite demand destruction and slowing growth, but also, it was a bubble, you need money coming in to the system to sustain a bubble. Massive deleveraging, hedge fund redemptions etc. meant that flow of money stopped and the bubble popped.

Ironically OPEC countries are less likely to follow through on production cuts at low prices as their budgets only balance at higher prices and they need all the income they can get so the price falls further.

Neither have I seen any evidence to indicate that it has NOT

There's plenty of evidence supporting the alternative theories as to what caused the crisis, if you want to propose a new cause you need to provide the evidence.

All in good time, sir. As a matter of fact, this depression is unraveling faster than the one in the 30's, if you look at economic indicators (I posted a few links recently). It took more than four years since the crash of '29 before the economy reached its lowest level.

That's a different argument though and not necessarily linked to peak oil. Unless you can link the current financial crisis to peak oil then its irrelevant in terms of your peak oil argument.

Quite the contrary, I have seen no evidence of that at all. You might argue that the highest oil prices ever recorded and the collapse of Wall Street three months later are mere coincidence. I don't. The two are directly linked.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? If there's a link then illustrate the link. The subprime crisis started long before oil prices peaked. You could argue the opposite, that all prices peaked as commodities were perceived as a safe haven. It wasn't just oil prices that spiked but commodities in general.

There seems to be a more clear link between the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the market collapse.

I believe that the vast majority of people will never actually "get" peak oil. They will keep on looking at the symptoms and never realise that the cause of all their hardships is actually dwindling energy supplies. Makes no difference though, as the devastating effect on their lives will be exactly the same either way. I'm fine with this and I do not go around preaching PO to anybody. In fact, I doubt that any of my friends know that I'm PO-aware. It does heavily influence the decisions that I make in life, though.

Isn't that a cop-out? Most people won't get it therefore you don't have to prove your arguments and justification?

 

[StrongTurd]

@ Syndre: Thanks for your detailed reply. Unfortunately I'm not going to offer a rebuttal. It's not that I couldn't; quite the opposite. The thing is just that I cannot seem to muster the energy to argue PO anymore. I stopped doing that way back in 2005. If even the IEC "gets" peak oil (2008 World Energy Outlook) and are predicting a 9% PA decline rate in existing fields then there's hardly any point in debating this any further.

I believe that the vast majority of people will never actually "get" peak oil. They will keep on looking at the symptoms and never realise that the cause of all their hardships is actually dwindling energy supplies. Makes no difference though, as the devastating effect on their lives will be exactly the same either way. I'm fine with this and I do not go around preaching PO to anybody. In fact, I doubt that any of my friends know that I'm PO-aware. It does heavily influence the decisions that I make in life, though.

Isn't that a cop-out? Most people won't get it therefore you don't have to prove your arguments and justification?

Well, yeah, I guess you're right. It probably is a cop-out. My point is that I've learned years ago that the implications of PO are just too much for most people to deal with. The fact that we might potentially be facing a population die-off that might wipe out more than 50% of all humans on this planet within the next 30 years is just not something that most people can comprehend.

In my experience the result of discussing PO with friends and family is either a reply along the lines of "Oh, when the oil runs out we'll just all start using electric cars" or "Don't worry, the scientists will think of something" or my personal favourite - the blank stare. As a result, I don't ever go there - unless of course the other person is PO-aware. I have met a few of those through the years.

The only reason why I keep this thread alive is to offer board members the opportunity to avail themselves of the latest PO news that would typically not appear in the South African media. Call it my regular public service announcements, if you will.

 

[km2]

In my experience the result of discussing PO with friends and family is either a reply along the lines of "Oh, when the oil runs out we'll just all start using electric cars" or "Don't worry, the scientists will think of something" or my personal favourite - the blank stare.

You probably get blank stares because you persist in belaboring clearly nonsensical points.

1) Humans deal well with gradual changes. The whole PO thing would not involve having oil one day and none the next. There'd be an increase in price as oil gets tighter and tighter which would force only the essential services to use oil while a replacement is found. All those gas guzzling SUVs would be forced off the road and it would increase the pressure to come up with a replacement.

2) We already have the technology to reduce our dependence on oil drastically, if it were a true financial emergency. And I'm not even talking about $200 a barrel oil, I'm taking many many times that. For freight we'd be forced to invest in a large rail infrastructure, and individuals would either need to use public transport or switch to motorcycles or even the "10-year away" plug-in vehicals.

My point is that I've learned years ago that the implications of PO are just too much for most people to deal with.

No, it's just that if we want to think of things that threaten us, we can come up with more plausible threats to civilization to worry about.

If even the IEC "gets" peak oil (2008 World Energy Outlook) and are predicting a 9% PA decline rate in existing fields then there's hardly any point in debating this any further.

Sure, I think we all "get" the concept of peak oil. What I don't agree with is your inevitable disaster scenario that comes with it. You're fixated on the idea that we've all got no other energy source without oil, and ignore the fact that a lot of our wasteful oil usage is out of pure convenience rather than direct necessity. You quote things like the "2008 World Energy Outlook", but all that says is "yes, we're going to hit peak oil, and we'd better invest in alternate fuel sources". Nothing even remotely threatening a potential collapse of modern human civilization as you claim.

 

[km2]

Just to put the whole "worst case scenario" into perspective:

The US is using 20 million barrels per day of oil.

A Sasol style CTL plant can produce 80 000 barrels per day, and cost $12.5 billion dollars to build.

Now ignoring any discounts through economies of scale, it would take around 20 000 000 / 80 000 = 250 Sasol plants to fuel the entire US from coal (which they have abundent reserves of). That comes to rougly $3 trillion.

So effectively what you're saying is that if push came to shove, the US couldn't scrape together $3 trillion to save their civilization over a gradual period of time as oil reserves dropped, yet they can throw around $1 trillion on bailouts pretty quickly without too much problem?

 

[StrongTurd]

@km2: You seem to fall into the "Oh, the scientists will think of something" group. Well, please would you define a possible candidate that offers (1) the same energy density, (2) the same portability, (3) the same same extremely low cost, (4) the same very high EROEI and (5) the same ability to be processed inexpensively into virtually any form that light sweet crude does? Then we can talk.

As you'll realise, every single alternative energy source that has been offered as a substitute falls flat on at least one of those criteria. Fact is, we've yet to come up with an alternative to light sweet crude and here's the rub: The very foundation of our civilization with its fixation on infinite growth is built on light sweet crude. As soon as LSC becomes too expensive, the wheels fall of, as was demonstrated so spectacularly in the recent past. The consumer economy with its sprawling suburbia ceases to function at $150 per barrel.

I see you're offering coal as an alternative. Well, I'd suggest that you Google the actual proven coal reserves of the world instead of relying on what the energy companies are telling you. Suffice to say that coal reserves are vastly over estimated. Additionally, if we were to convert from oil to coal as our primary energy source, coal will run out in a very short time indeed not to mention the spectacular environmental damage that 250 Sasol plants will produce.

It all comes back to our society's inability to understand the exponential function. Infinite growth is a physical impossibility and our Western business model ceases to function when an infinite growth model runs headlong into a finite resource base.

 

[Syndyre]

@ Syndre: Thanks for your detailed reply. Unfortunately I'm not going to offer a rebuttal. It's not that I couldn't; quite the opposite. The thing is just that I cannot seem to muster the energy to argue PO anymore. I stopped doing that way back in 2005. If even the IEC "gets" peak oil (2008 World Energy Outlook) and are predicting a 9% PA decline rate in existing fields then there's hardly any point in debating this any further.


Well, yeah, I guess you're right. It probably is a cop-out. My point is that I've learned years ago that the implications of PO are just too much for most people to deal with. The fact that we might potentially be facing a population die-off that might wipe out more than 50% of all humans on this planet within the next 30 years is just not something that most people can comprehend.

In my experience the result of discussing PO with friends and family is either a reply along the lines of "Oh, when the oil runs out we'll just all start using electric cars" or "Don't worry, the scientists will think of something" or my personal favourite - the blank stare. As a result, I don't ever go there - unless of course the other person is PO-aware. I have met a few of those through the years.

The only reason why I keep this thread alive is to offer board members the opportunity to avail themselves of the latest PO news that would typically not appear in the South African media. Call it my regular public service announcements, if you will.

I don't think PO in its pure form is disputed, obviously if you're dealing with a finite resource eventually production's going to peak and then decline. The disagreement is in what's supposedly going to happen when that occurs.

1) Humans deal well with gradual changes. The whole PO thing would not involve having oil one day and none the next. There'd be an increase in price as oil gets tighter and tighter which would force only the essential services to use oil while a replacement is found. All those gas guzzling SUVs would be forced off the road and it would increase the pressure to come up with a replacement.

Exactly, if prices rise you'll see demand destruction and a shift towards substitutes, as we already saw in a minor way earlier this year as people dumped SUVs and bought hybrids etc.

@km2: You seem to fall into the "Oh, the scientists will think of something" group. Well, please would you define a possible candidate that offers (1) the same energy density, (2) the same portability, (3) the same same extremely low cost, (4) the same very high EROEI and (5) the same ability to be processed inexpensively into virtually any form that light sweet crude does? Then we can talk.

There isn't one presently but its a big jump to go from more expensive energy to anarchy, billions dying etc. Oil is used inefficiently at the moment because its relatively cheap and so it makes economic sense to do, if the price were to rise it would be used more efficiently and people would substitute other inputs for it, not necessarily even other energy sources but e.g. spending more on more energy efficient cars, machinery etc. That's Economics 101.

As you'll realise, every single alternative energy source that has been offered as a substitute falls flat on at least one of those criteria. Fact is, we've yet to come up with an alternative to light sweet crude and here's the rub: The very foundation of our civilization with its fixation on infinite growth is built on light sweet crude. As soon as LSC becomes too expensive, the wheels fall of, as was demonstrated so spectacularly in the recent past. The consumer economy with its sprawling suburbia ceases to function at $150 per barrel.

That's the claim you keep making but you haven't provided any evidence for it, unless you can link the current financial crisis to high oil prices. The world has survived oil price spikes before and it looks like it'll survive this one.

If oil does increase in price you'll probably see the property values in e.g. US exurbs dropping but that's far from a major collapse. Europe already uses far less oil than the US and its hardly a barren wasteland.

It all comes back to our society's inability to understand the exponential function. Infinite growth is a physical impossibility and our Western business model ceases to function when an infinite growth model runs headlong into a finite resource base.

One way to achieve growth is to use more resources, the other way is to use existing resources in a more efficient manner. If you're talking about energy resources then solar is potentially an almost unlimited energy source.

 

[bodhi]

@StrongTurd

Show me research that you have conducted without using WWW sites -then I might start taking your statements a bit more seriously.

 

[StrongTurd]

@StrongTurd

Show me research that you have conducted without using WWW sites -then I might start taking your statements a bit more seriously.

Ummm....what sort of a question is this? Does it really warrant a reply? When did I claim to be a bona fide researcher? I'm a normal guy with a day job. I don't walk around with a white coat and a clipboard. FYI my membership at the local library lapsed in 1996 when I first acquired Internet access. I find this medium to be a far more convenient one in which to do "research" than using ol' Gutenberg's way.

I hate to break this to you but I doubt that I'll be losing much sleep due to the fact that I get my info from the Internet and you won't be taking me seriously as a result.

 

[BBSA]

And they doubtless ignore everything that says different. Hong Kong's economy is not run the way you think it is. Despite Hong Kong being raised up as a bastion of economic freedom it is not. It is in fact a very tightly controlled and managed economy. Just look at land ownership. Or the way construction contracts are handed out by government.

Not according to this research:

Hong Kong's economy is 90.3 percent free, according to our 2008 assessment, which makes it the world's freest economy. Its overall score is 0.3 percentage point lower than last year, mainly reflecting a lower monetary freedom score. Hong Kong is ranked 1st out of 30 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is well above the regional average.
Hong Kong scores exceptionally well in almost all areas. Income and corporate tax rates are very competitive, and overall taxation is relatively small as a percentage of GDP. Business regulation is simple, and the labor market is highly flexible. Investment is strongly encouraged, and there are virtually no restrictions on foreign capital. The island is one of the world's leading financial centers, and regulation of banking and financial services is non-intrusive and transparent. Property rights are protected by an independent and virtually corruption-free judiciary.

Hong Kong could do slightly better in trade freedom. Although the average tariff rate is zero percent, enforcement of intellectual property rights is a problem. The weakest score is in monetary freedom, which is still 13 percentage points higher than the world average and would be higher if Hong Kong ended its remaining price controls.

Background:
The Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China but retains a separate political governance structure and economic system. Chief Executive Donald Tsang has pledged to advance universal suffrage, a promise made in the territory's mini-constitution, the Basic Law. A British colony for more than 150 years until the 1997 transfer of sovereignty to China, Hong Kong retains its rule of law, simple procedures for enterprises, free entry of foreign capital, repatriation of earnings, and financial transparency. It is a major gateway for business with China. Major industries include financial services, shipping, and other services. Manufacturing has largely migrated to mainland China.

Business Freedom - 88.2%
The overall freedom to start, operate, and close a business is protected by Hong Kong's regulatory environment. Starting a business takes less than the half the world average of 43 days, and obtaining a business license takes less than the world average of 234 days. Bankruptcy proceedings are very easy and relatively costless.

Trade Freedom - 95%
Hong Kong's weighted average tariff rate was zero percent in 2005. Except for liquor, tobacco, hydrocarbon oil, and methyl alcohol, trade is essentially duty-free. Restrictive pharmaceuticals regulation, market access restrictions for legal services, limited import licensing, and issues involving intellectual property rights add to the cost of trade. An additional 5 percentage points is deducted from Hong Kong's trade freedom score to account for non-tariff barriers.

Fiscal Freedom - 92.8%
Hong Kong's tax rates are among the world's lowest. Individuals are taxed either progressively, between 2 percent and 17 percent, on income adjusted for deductions and allowances or at a flat rate of 16 percent on gross income, depending on which liability is lower. The top corporate income tax rate is 17.5 percent. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 12.7 percent.

Freedom from Government - 93.1%
Total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, are fairly low. In the most recent year, government spending equaled 15.2 percent of GDP. The government has made efforts to maintain a balanced budget.

Monetary Freedom - 87.2%
Inflation is low, averaging 1.5 percent between 2004 and 2006. Stable prices explain most of the monetary freedom score. The government regulates the prices of public transport and electricity and some residential rents. An additional 5 percentage points is deducted from Hong Kong's monetary freedom score to adjust for measures that distort domestic prices.

Investment Freedom - 90%
Foreign capital receives domestic treatment, and foreign investment is strongly encouraged. There are no limits on foreign ownership and no screening or special approval procedures to set up a foreign firm, except in broadcasting, where foreign entities may own no more than 49 percent of the local stations, and specific legal services. The government owns all land and treats foreign and domestic lessors equally. The Hong Kong dollar is freely convertible. There are no controls or requirements on current transfers, purchase of real estate, access to foreign exchange, or repatriation of profits.

Financial Freedom - 90%
Hong Kong is a global financial center. Its regulatory and legal environment is focused on prudent minimum standards and transparency. At the end of 2006, there were 137 licensed banks, 31 restricted license banks, and 33 "deposit-taking companies." Banks are overseen by the independent Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Credit is allocated on market terms. There are no restrictions on foreign banks, which are treated the same as domestic institutions. The stock exchange ranks eighth in the world in terms of capitalization, but its regulation and transparency have been criticized in the past. The government intervened in the stock market in 1998 by purchasing $15.2 billion in private stocks but has since divested itself of all but $410 million of these holdings.

Property Rights - 90%
Contracts are strongly protected. Hong Kong's legal system is transparent and based on common law, and its constitution strongly supports private property and freedom of exchange. Despite government public awareness campaigns to protect intellectual property rights, pirated and counterfeit products such as CDs, DVDs, software, and designer apparel are sold openly. The government controls all land and, through public auctions, grants renewable leases that are valid up to 2047 for all land in the SAR.

Freedom from Corruption - 83%
Corruption is perceived as minimal. Hong Kong ranks 15th out of 163 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2006, and foreign firms do not see corruption as an obstacle to investment. Giving or accepting a bribe, whether by foreign officials or by private citizens and government employees, is a criminal act.

Labor Freedom - 93.3%
Highly flexible employment regulations enhance employment opportunities and productivity growth. The labor code is strictly enforced but not burdensome. The non-salary cost of employing a worker is low, but dismissing a redundant employee can be relatively costly. Regulations on expanding or contracting the number of working hours are very flexible. Hong Kong's labor freedom is one of the highest in the world.

 

[km2]

@km2: You seem to fall into the "Oh, the scientists will think of something" group. Well, please would you define a possible candidate that offers (1) the same energy density, (2) the same portability, (3) the same same extremely low cost, (4) the same very high EROEI and (5) the same ability to be processed inexpensively into virtually any form that light sweet crude does? Then we can talk.

I know you don't like to include into the picture likely advances in technology, so most of the options I gave were current things we could do. 75% of oil (in America) is used in transportation. Rail is not a new technology, and would dramatically reduce the usage of oil. Small cars are not a new technology, same thing applies.

If we don't change our lifestyle at all then the US has the coal reserves of roughly 250 000 mtons, and with the Sasol process doing rougly 1 ton coal = 2 barrels of oil, we get 500 000 million barrels of oil, enough to last the US for another 40+ years with just the current "proven" coal reserves.

Now assuming that we start to get into a tight spot with oil in 2030, we still get to 2070 just on coal allowing us to continue the same wasteful style we're accustomed to. That's just on proven reserves, I'm sure there'll be a lot more found when it's actually worth peoples time to look for it (same thing happened with oil, when someone cares suddenly they find more).

As you'll realise, every single alternative energy source that has been offered as a substitute falls flat on at least one of those criteria. Fact is, we've yet to come up with an alternative to light sweet crude and here's the rub: The very foundation of our civilization with its fixation on infinite growth is built on light sweet crude. As soon as LSC becomes too expensive, the wheels fall of, as was demonstrated so spectacularly in the recent past. The consumer economy with its sprawling suburbia ceases to function at $150 per barrel.

Sasol tells us that CTL pays for itself and the shareholders quite nicely at $60 per barrel oil, a figure which can easily sustain our capitalist decadence.

I see you're offering coal as an alternative. Well, I'd suggest that you Google the actual proven coal reserves of the world instead of relying on what the energy companies are telling you. Suffice to say that coal reserves are vastly over estimated.

I'm not sure how you can just brush off industry proven coal reserves with a handwave and say "oh those are just industry figures, I don't believe them". The governments appear to use them, and industry would be more keen to underestimate reserves so they can get more permits to dig and drill in places they weren't allowed before, as we saw with the whole offshore drilling story. Of course if you have some other figures that contradict this, I'd like to see them.

Now lets say those proven coal reserves are it and that they don't find any other reserves in future, by 2070 I would expect us to have made some more advances in battery technology to make more electric vehicles viable. We can already do small, ugly, viable electric vehicles with our current tech, and if the improvments we've seen in battery life/quality in laptops is anything to go by we should have something decent by then.

Additionally, if we were to convert from oil to coal as our primary energy source, coal will run out in a very short time indeed not to mention the spectacular environmental damage that 250 Sasol plants will produce.

The real point of all of this is that if we haven't made any advances in technology by 2070 I think we will have already been screwed over by global warming, food shortages, bird flu, terrorism, and the countless other scenarios which are more plausible than worrying about running out of oil or an oil substitute. Peak oil is just not a big problem.

It all comes back to our society's inability to understand the exponential function. Infinite growth is a physical impossibility and our Western business model ceases to function when an infinite growth model runs headlong into a finite resource base.

Yes, I've noticed. It's not even a good example of it. Why not pick something like global warming which actually seems more like a real threat and is linked to industrial expansion?

 

[icyrus]

@ Syndre: Thanks for your detailed reply. Unfortunately I'm not going to offer a rebuttal. It's not that I couldn't; quite the opposite.

Haha

discussing PO with friends and family is either a reply along the lines of "Oh, when the oil runs out we'll just all start using electric cars" or "Don't worry, the scientists will think of something" or my personal favourite - the blank stare. As a result, I don't ever go there - unless of course the other person is PO-aware. I have met a few of those through the years.

More comic gold. I can imagine you sitting on your horse galloping along a few hundred years ago scratching your head as to how some crazy people imagine they would be able to travel faster than that.

You are a riot.

The only reason why I keep this thread alive is to offer board members the opportunity to avail themselves of the latest PO news that would typically not appear in the South African media. Call it my regular public service announcements, if you will.

Or stroking your exponentially growing ego.

Cute.

 

[StrongTurd]

Haha

More comic gold. I can imagine you sitting on your horse galloping along a few hundred years ago scratching your head as to how some crazy people imagine they would be able to travel faster than that.

You are a riot.

Or stroking your exponentially growing ego.

Cute.

I've worded what I thought to be a very apt reply to your personal attack but eventually decided to refrain from using it as it would lead to the quick degeneration of this thread. It would be sad to see that happen as I've had some excellent responses from people that do not agree with my viewpoint but argued their cases in a very civilised and informative manner.

May I please ask you to stay on topic?

 

[icyrus]

I've worded what I thought to be a very apt reply to your personal attack but eventually decided to refrain from using it as it would lead to the quick degeneration of this thread. It would be sad to see that happen as I've had some excellent responses from people that do not agree with my viewpoint but argued their cases in a very civilised and informative manner.

May I please ask you to stay on topic?

Oh how dreary. Especially when you have already pointed out that your reaction to opposing views is to stick you fingers in your ears and shout "la la la I can't hear you" - not that you can't respond, you just don't want to... of course.

You should've gone with your first instinct.

 

[StrongTurd]

A long but interesting read with some startling statistics.

A weak dollar since 2001 helped the US grow export revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars per year from 2000 to 2008. With the dollar strengthening and global demand falling, that source of economic growth is no longer available. We do expect the US to take measures to depreciate the dollar but for the purpose of increasing inflation expectations.

The US is out of monetary, currency, and credit tricks to play to halt the current recession to prevent it from turning into a depression. The only tools left are fiscal, and the sooner the US deploys them the better the chances that a depression can be avoided.

Conclusion

In total we see the US economy losing between seven and 13 million jobs by the end of 2009 representing a 5% to 10% increase in unemployment. Our forecasts during this crisis have tended to be on the optimistic side; steeper job losses cannot be ruled out, especially if other feedback loops intensify. For example, rising unemployment will lead to a further 20% to 40% decline in real estate prices as households lose access to income to pay mortgage debt. A further tightening of credit as the pool of credit-worthy borrowers contracts means even deeper losses in Wholesale Trade, leading to more unemployment, and so on.

This is bound to have a tremendous impact on the world economy. How many jobs will be taken out of the world economy if another 13 million Americans and their families stop buying Chinese excrement?

 

[Lord Anubis]

CTL...is that even viable on a huge scale (global) considering the enormous environmental footprint that it would result in?