An apology to all future generations: Sorry we used up your oil...

[xXSilencerXx]

I don't really care. The only peole I get pissed at about oil are the dumba** terroists who light the wells on fire. That is wasting it. Otherwise it seems to have been put to good use.

 

[Danoff]

"My" scenario? You think this is my idea? Huh? What?

Forget me. Look at what Hirsch has to say:

"The bell curve has a sharp crest, and you can't see it coming."

"Robert L. Hirsch is a senior energy program advisor for SAIC. ( http://www.saic.com/ ) Previous employment includes senior positions at the Energy Research and Development Administration, ARCO, Exxon, EPRI, APTI and Rand. He is a past chairman of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems at the National Academies. He has a PhD in engineering and physics from the University of Illinois."

Please cite your research that proves Hirsch is wrong. Please explain how we are going to have a "nice, slow transition" when oil production actually falls off a cliff when the fields start going dry.

Please cite somebody other than yourself.

Hirsch doesn't seem to agree with you, at least his research doesn't. Did you look at the scales on those charts? ...and you want to apply these results for localized regions to the entire global production?? When other oil wells will be tapped to replace the ones whose output declines?? You're being pretty sloppy. It's like you're grasping around for some sort of evidence. You find something that looks somewhat remotely like it's indicating something that supports your position and then you hold it up for everyone to look at. "See!! Look at this! It proves my point!". It doesn't prove your point, not even close.

I provided some solid concrete numbers in the post above. At least 60% of US oil consumption is replaceable by technology that exists right now . I'd bet that number is higher on a global scale.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Yes - sorry, future generations, that we utilised the resources available to us at the time in order to bring you into existence and create a world for you to live in and made the basis in our research for your future, emissionless survival, when what we should have done is ration the oil so that everyone was miserable and no-one could get anywhere significant and passed this on to you with all technological advancement stifled.

Nice try but fuel is being wasted. They are plently of people to blame and several countries are trying to battle the effects but certain people who are in the highest position of power dont want to do it.

 

[Duke]

Nice try but fuel is being wasted. They are plently of people to blame and several countries are trying to battle the effects but certain people who are in the highest position of power dont want to do it.

Oh, please do explain with some in-depth analysis of GWB and his money-driven control over world politics. This should be highly entertaining.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Oh, please do explain with some in-depth analysis of GWB and his money-driven control over world politics. This should be highly entertaining.

You need to stop reading into everyhting as a attack on america. If I wanted to talk about the negative ongoings about america I would just open a thread titled "saddam huesseins trial" and then talk about how hes still the countrys president,that the war is illegal, and that america are hypocrites in that saddams partly on trial for use of chemical weapons when you guys used phosphorus....The powerful amke up teh rules as they go along....

Just like with fuel.

 

[Zardoz]

Hirsch doesn't seem to agree with you, at least his research doesn't...

What are you talking about? Did you read his conclusion? :

"SUMMARY

To understand the possible character of the peaking of world conventional oil production, oil peaking in a number of relatively unencumbered regions and countries was considered. All had significant production, and all were certainly or almost certainly past their peak. The data shows that the onset of peaking can occur quite suddenly, peaks can be very sharp, and post-peak production declines can be comparatively steep (3 - 13%). Thus, if historical patterns are appropriate indicators, the task of planning for and managing world conventional oil peaking will indeed be very challenging."

You're hopes for a "nice, smooth transition" depend upon processes being in place that simply don't exist yet. You seem to be convinced that some sort of Messiah-like miraculous technology is suddenly going to appear and replace oil.

 

[Danoff]

What are you talking about? Did you read his conclusion? :

"SUMMARY

To understand the possible character of the peaking of world conventional oil production, oil peaking in a number of relatively unencumbered regions and countries was considered. All had significant production, and all were certainly or almost certainly past their peak. The data shows that the onset of peaking can occur quite suddenly, peaks can be very sharp, and post-peak production declines can be comparatively steep (3 - 13%). Thus, if historical patterns are appropriate indicators, the task of planning for and managing world conventional oil peaking will indeed be very challenging."

You're hopes for a "nice, smooth transition" depend upon processes being in place that simply don't exist yet. You seem to be convinced that some sort of Messiah-like miraculous technology is suddenly going to appear and replace oil.

It's like you read a few words from my post and then go off in whatever direction you want. You should try reading the whole thing next time. 3-13% falloff after the peak... wow. Big woop. Do you think that suddenly every single oilfield on the planet is going to go through this simultaneously ? Even if they did, the effect could be as little as 3% at would be 13% at the maximum according to the guy's research. That's 13% if all oil fields on the planet underwent the maximum value he saw in his research simultaneously ... and 13% isn't exactly a huge number... not compared the the 60% I'm throwing around.

Slow and gradual. His conclusions don't agree with you.

 

[Zardoz]

At least 60% of US oil consumption is replaceable by technology that exists right now . I'd bet that number is higher on a global scale.

...the 60% I'm throwing around.

I'll certainly agree that you're "throwing around" a number.

Again, you seem to have knowledge of imminent miraculous developments that nobody else knows about. Please detail how we are going to make that rapid switch and stop needing 60% of the oil we're now using.

Please explain how we're going to convert 133,000,000 gasoline and diesel burning vehicles to ethanol, how oil-fired power plants can quickly be converted to trash-burners, how railroad locomotives won't need diesel fuel, and how jet airliners can be made to run on something other than JP-4.

 

[Duke]

You need to stop reading into everyhting as a attack on america. If I wanted to talk about the negative ongoings about america I would just open a thread titled "saddam huesseins trial" and then talk about how hes still the countrys president,that the war is illegal, and that america are hypocrites in that saddams partly on trial for use of chemical weapons when you guys used phosphorus....The powerful amke up teh rules as they go along....

Just like with fuel.

I think I'd rather join you on your quest for mega brain cells.

 

[Young_Warrior]

You do that.

 

[Blackbird.]

You Bastiges!

 

[Danoff]

I'll certainly agree that you're "throwing around" a number.

Again, you seem to have knowledge of imminent miraculous developments that nobody else knows about. Please detail how we are going to make that rapid switch and stop needing 60% of the oil we're now using.

Please explain how we're going to convert 133,000,000 gasoline and diesel burning vehicles to ethanol, how oil-fired power plants can quickly be converted to trash-burners, how railroad locomotives won't need diesel fuel, and how jet airliners can be made to run on something other than JP-4.

I see, so you're not going to respond to my criticism of your link. You're just going to move on... interesting.

I have already detailed how we can make a transition to using 60% less oil than we do now.

Home heating, cars, and power make up 60% of our oil consumption. The technology exists today to replace all of these things with non-oil burning alternatives. Electricity is capable of taking care of cars and home heating. The power can be provided by existing technology using wind, sun, and or nuclear energy.

I didn't say we were geared up for a rapid transition. But your link proves that we don't need to be geared up for a rapid transition. We can certainly shift on to those alternatives as oil prices go up... that shift will account for a massive reduction in oil consumption. The rest of the oil consumption is a little nebulous. It occupies what is often refered to as "other" on the charts. Some of the rest isn't "other" though, it's Jet fuel and other transportation. It's not clear to me what alternative we're going to come up with at the moment for air travel. Perhaps air travel will get more expensive. I'd place money on a new technology though.

But first and formost we can rediculously reduce our oil consumption by using alternatives for cars, power, and heating. All of those have existing alternatives right now.

Of course all of this comes at a cost. The price of oil will have to go substantially higher than it is now - so there will be a price penalty at first.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'll try this without the assumption that Duke (and many of us) made. Hopefully then you will answer teh question.

Nice try but fuel is being wasted.

How so? Please give specific examples and how we can stop it.

They are plently of people to blame and several countries are trying to battle the effects...

Who is to blame? Give a few groups, I don't need names.
What countries are trying to battle the effects of an oil peak? Just a few will do.

...but certain people who are in the highest position of power dont want to do it.

This would be where the assumption that Duke made came from. If you don't mean GWB or Americans then who? Evil corporations? Please explain.

 

[Zardoz]

I see, so you're not going to respond to my criticism of your link. You're just going to move on... interesting...

You really do seem to think this is some sort of personal opinion thing, don't you?

Let's go back to that 3% to 13% figure that you blew off as being insignificant.

You do realize that the percentages refer to the annual drop-off, right? Let's say all the fields average just a 5% annual reduction after peaking. Do the math! The fields will be putting out half their peak in just one decade!

Like Hirsch said:

"In all cases, it was not obvious that production was about to peak a year prior to the event.

"The peaks were sharp, not gently varying bell curves and not flat topped, as some forecasters have hoped.

"Post-peak production declines were much greater than our 2% benchmark in some cases."

That's what Hirsch is talking about in his summary, which you don't seem to believe. Sorry, but I consider Hirsch to be more of an authority on the subject than you.

 

[Danoff]

You really do seem to think this is some sort of personal opinion thing, don't you?

Not at all.

You do realize that the percentages refer to the annual drop-off, right? Let's say all the fields average just a 5% annual reduction after peaking. Do the math! The fields will be putting out half their peak in just one decade!

Slopy slopy slopy. Hirsch would be uspet at such blatant misuse of his research.

Let's take a look at those charts shall we?

UK, dropped 13% in 3 years.
Norway dropped 6% in 3 years.
North America dropped 6% in 4 years.
Texas dropped 13% in 5 years.

All of those have already happened. We absorbed all of it. Now I ask you what the likelihood is that all oil feilds all over the planet will have a massive decline in the same decade?

 

[Young_Warrior]

I'll try this without the assumption that Duke (and many of us) made. Hopefully then you will answer teh question.


How so? Please give specific examples and how we can stop it.

Who is to blame? Give a few groups, I don't need names.
What countries are trying to battle the effects of an oil peak? Just a few will do.

This would be where the assumption that Duke made came from. If you don't mean GWB or Americans then who? Evil corporations? Please explain.

People = plural = more than one

UK for one is trying to get its people to stop wasting fuel by not having to use their private transport unnecessarly when we have a perfectly good and cheaper public transport system...And several scandinavian countries are big belivers in prolongeing the availability of the precious liquid gold.

Countries that waste fuel...China springs to mind.Obviously america which you guys more than understand. I belive India aswell and theres a couple other countries.

Then there are the big corporations. Alot of the times its the corporations within a country that waste fuel which in turn makes the country look bad in surveys... But then the countries government should have stricter regulations and adjust to life. Our so called leaders should have a back up plan instead of looking out for themselves and todays world. When people like me are older and if our standard of life drastically drops guess who will get the blame?

Actually drop india from that list and china. There are some more developed countries out there that waste fuel but some are just more blatent in the fact that it could be cut down.

 

[Famine]

we have a perfectly good and cheaper public transport system...

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

 

[Young_Warrior]

Well not you but us Londoners do.Sometimes cramped in the rush hours but no secondary school kid should ever get dropped off and picked up by their mum again as there is no such problem with buses. And its free for under 16's now just to get all these mothers off our roads causing mayhem with their driving skills and taking up space.

 

[Zardoz]

All of those have already happened. We absorbed all of it...

Wait a minute! Do you think we can just keep "absorbing" these annual drop-offs in production?

BTW, gas is going to start getting seriously expensive in the UK pretty soon:

"North Sea oil output is declining rapidly"

"The rate of decline has ranged from 6% to 17%, year-on-year."

 

[FoolKiller]

People = plural = more than one

UK for one is trying to get its people to stop wasting fuel by not having to use their private transport unnecessarly when we have a perfectly good and cheaper public transport system...And several scandinavian countries are big belivers in prolongeing the availability of the precious liquid gold.

Countries that waste fuel...China springs to mind.Obviously america which you guys more than understand. I belive India aswell and theres a couple other countries.

Then there are the big corporations. Alot of the times its the corporations within a country that waste fuel which in turn makes the country look bad in surveys... But then the countries government should have stricter regulations and adjust to life. Our so called leaders should have a back up plan instead of looking out for themselves and todays world. When people like me are older and if our standard of life drastically drops guess who will get the blame?

Please describe the waste and how we as individiuals can stop it.

 

[Famine]

Well not you but us Londoners do.Sometimes cramped in the rush hours but no secondary school kid should ever get dropped off and picked up by their mum again as there is no such problem with buses. And its free for under 16's now just to get all these mothers off our roads causing mayhem with their driving skills and taking up space.

I used London's public transport to get to work every day - including during school holidays - for 2 years. Train there, Tube then bus.

If you think ANY of them are "perfectly good" or "clean" you're delusional. I've never encountered a clean Tube train or bus. I've never encountered an on-time Tube train or bus. That said, nothing is on-time in London - it'd probably be just as bad in the car. Then again, at least my car uses less fuel and produces less emissions, per passenger, than a Routemaster.

Buses at least have an excuse for tardiness - they have to use all of the same roads as the cars (despite commonly having vast tracts of their own lanes), attempting to share spaces originally "designed" 800 years ago. Tube trains have no excuses at all.


Better yet, you've dropped right into the trap that all politicians do. London = UK. You're right in that "the UK" (read: The government of the UK) is trying to get people onto public transport by pricing them out of private transport. Only public transport networks just don't exist outside major population centres, leaving those people utterly screwed and with a choice to move to where it's expensive to live, or live where it's expensive to get anywhere.

BTW, gas is going to start getting seriously expensive in the UK pretty soon:

Since it's sooooo cheap now, obviously.

We produce our own oil too and have our own refineries. Seen our petrol prices recently?

 

[Danoff]

Wait a minute! Do you think we can just keep "absorbing" these annual drop-offs in production?

No.

Are you going to respond to anything I wrote or are you conceeding that you misinterpreted the research results?

 

[Zardoz]

One of the primary reasons why we are now hearing so much about this is that we have only recently woken up to the fact that OPEC has been snowing us on just how much oil is really left. This story sums it up pretty well:

"The larger the reserves a country said it had, the more it could pump. The more it could pump the more money it could make."

The fact is, we really don't know how much is actually left. OPEC has been playing games with us. Refer again to the chart in my original post. We've been snookered, and everybody's finally starting to realize it.

Meanwhile, the bad news is starting to pile up rapidly. This one is a major shocker:

"The second largest oil field in the world is exhausted and past its peak output"

This came out of nowhere. It was totally unexpected. Note the question about the IEA long-term production estimates, which apparently are now going to have to be revised downward.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Please describe the waste and how we as individiuals can stop it.

Recycle. Dont waste energy by leaving electronic goods needlessy on such as on stand by. Dont waste water. Have a compost heap. Have a rain water barrel outside to catch rain water for plants. Dont use your car unecessarly. Organise car pools.

Only public transport networks just don't exist outside major population centres, leaving those people utterly screwed and with a choice to move to where it's expensive to live, or live where it's expensive to get anywhere.

Well lets say you live in a place that isnt heavily populated such as somehwre in cornwall. Then as you say you will have to use your car. But thats fine because theres hardly any traffic in the first place meaning your journeys are alot quicker. In london if everyone used cars alot of fuel is wasted from cars just sitting on the same spot thanks to traffic.

If you think ANY of them are "perfectly good" or "clean" you're delusional. I've never encountered a clean Tube train or bus. I've never encountered an on-time Tube train or bus.

Well I dont know which traisn you travveled on but my trains are fairly clean. As clean as you could expect them to be. I shall take some pictures just for you and evryone else here as proof on monday when I next go on a train. And I have to say that trains actually do come on time and im actually surprised that often they come exactly when the monitor says. I can take a picture of that too.

Then again, at least my car uses less fuel and produces less emissions, per passenger, than a Routemaster.

Yes a routemaster. A warning for those that think its a normal bus: It used to be a normal bus but now its a old piece of poo from the sometime in the 19thcentury. 1946 I think they were first introduced. The few that are still in service are actually being replaced and getting a bus is much better for conserving fuel and the enviroment.

 

[Zardoz]

Are you going to respond to anything I wrote or are you conceeding that you misinterpreted the research results?

Okay: Do the math for me. What average would you like to use, and how much will production be reduced in ten years, twenty years, and thirty years? The whole point of my original post is what things will be like in the future, not next spring.

And I'm sorry, but I think you're being naive about how easily, and how quickly, we'll be able to replace oil.

 

[Zardoz]

...Seen our petrol prices recently?

No, what are you paying?

 

[Young_Warrior]

Nearly 90p in some places per litre.

So to put that in perspective to fill up a medium sized saloon from near enough empty it would cost a person £100 US dollars.

 

[Famine]

Well lets say you live in a place that isnt heavily populated such as somehwre in cornwall. Then as you say you will have to use your car. But thats fine because theres hardly any traffic in the first place meaning your journeys are alot quicker.

Spot the man who's never had to drive on the A303.

Well I dont know which traisn you travveled on

Connex (now replaced), Jubilee (the brand new part) and District lines.

but my trains are fairly clean. As clean as you could expect them to be. I shall take some pictures just for you and evryone else here as proof on monday when I next go on a train. And I have to say that trains actually do come on time and im actually surprised that often they come exactly when the monitor says. I can take a picture of that too.

And I'll take a photograph of the inside and outside of my car - which has no urine stains (well, maybe one. But it's in the passenger side) and no chewing gum on the seats.

As for cheaper... It costs me less in petrol in my relatively inefficient car to do a long schlepp to and from my dad's house than it does to buy a return ticket. I also arrive in less time and only have to load and unload my luggage once at each end (and can carry far more).


Would you like to know how a train stacks up against a car in terms of carbon dioxide load per passenger?

Yes a routemaster. A warning for those that think its a normal bus: It used to be a normal bus but now its a old piece of poo from the sometime in the 19thcentury. 1946 I think they were first introduced. The few that are still in service are actually being replaced and getting a bus is much better for conserving fuel and the enviroment.

Are they in use or not?

Would you like to know how a bus stacks up against a car in terms of carbon dioxide load per passenger?


Amusingly, when not carrying passengers, my car produces no carbon dioxide and consumes no fuel at all. I can sit at any given window in the Congestion Charge zone and watch bus after empty bus trundle past for hours on end.

Nearly 90p per litre in some places

"Nearly" meaning "slightly in excess of".

 

[Famine]

Sorry. Fat fingers. Meh, I'm a Westerner.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Yes but take away the empty bus after empty bus will will most of the time have a couple of people on it and in turn yu will have more cars on the streets. And yes I want to know about those carbon dioxide facts...Even though this is about the wastage of fuel.And I can get a plan to birmingham for £1 and in turn pawn your car argument. The value of the train when travelling outside of london depends on the distance most of the time. Plus then theres tiredness from driving and stress. You get food and get to watch TV on trains.

There are like 6 routemasters in use now...Out of a couple hundread buses.Ok maybe not 6 a bit more than that.