End of the oil industry

[BAMslam15]

Any thoughts on what will happen when we consume all of the oil that's on Earth? I think Edison and other electric companies will start an oligarchy for electrical resources much like Exxon and Shell are doing today. Is there anyway we can nationalize electricity so this doesn't happen. Sorry if this seems kinda like a strange question lol ;)1

[Os Cangaceiros]

IIRC most electric power here in the US is supplied by coal, not oil, and supposedly there's still enough coal on the planet to supply humanity for the next several hundred years, even taking into account population growth rates on earth. Not really related to "peak oil", just a general point...

[Sudsy]

That`s a really scary scenario but it has to happen. We will descend into chaos! I think you're right that shortages of our natural resources will lead to extreme oligarchies when the elite use their power to grab hold of what little remains. The positive thing is if the masses really get pushed to that point they will rebel with ferociousness, of course I wish we'd never run out of oil though, too bad that's impossible. But imagine what the third world will face when these happens? It'll be genocide. The complete depletion of our oil is a very scary future. Does anyone think we'll be able to reach any technological breakthroughs that can sustain us better in this situation in this future?

[Sudsy]

IIRC most electric power here in the US is supplied by coal, not oil, and supposedly there's still enough coal on the planet to supply humanity for the next several hundred years, even taking into account population growth rates on earth. Not really related to "peak oil", just a general point...
But on the topic of oil, it is a serious matter.

From http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/energy-supply/fossil-energy/when-will-oil-run-out:

There are an estimated 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption will be sufficient to last 40 years.

By 2040, production levels may be down to 15 million barrels per day – around 20% of what we currently consume. It is likely by then that the world’s population will be twice as large, and more of it industrialised (and therefore oil dependent).

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well there's still quite a bit of potential in natural gas as an exploitable resource, for example the USA is apparently going to go from being a fuel-import nation to a fuel-export nation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578489130300876450.html#a rticleTabs%3Darticle

But I'm not so much concerned with the prospect of "whoops, looks like we used all our oil up!", I don't think that it'll get to that point before serious problems start arising. Even if we had infinite supplies of oil, there'd still be problems relating to the burning of fossil fuels etc

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The real problem isn't the peak, but the shape of the curve after the peak. The more sharply it goes down, the worse the post-peak situation gets.

Another factor is the question of replacements. Doomsters and disasturbators try and paint it like there's no substitute for oil, but that's a load of absolute rot. Coal liquefaction (for oil-based materials) and nuclear fission (for electricity generation) will keep civilisation going for centuries even if mismanaged (although the environmental costs could range from bad to terrifying), although we could still make things more difficult for ourselves by being too slow to move on to a post-peak oil situation.

Bottom line is, oil will be getting more and more expensive, and as it does so there will be increasing pressure to find alternatives. As a result the world will change(for the better if we are lucky, for the worse if we are not), but it won't end.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah petrol will just become too labor intensive and not cost-effective for industry long before we hit any sort of natural limit. But for capitalism, this will close some areas of profit-making while opening up new ones. The capitalists can either invest tons of money now to develop alternatives - which would require large-scale state involvement like big industrial-infrastructure projects of the Keynsian decades (and I don't think the ruling class sees that as a likely or attractive option at this point) - or they can just begin to favor other varieties of carbon-fuels and this is begining already with coal and other more or less destructive forms of cheap energy.

A "crisis-view" of these things (though there's a lot of real crisis in regards to capitalist environmental impacts) doen't mean any real change or that people will be more motivated to find better, more sustainable alternatives. More likly in the short-term it will make bad options presented to the public seem more appealing as the "only viable alternative". Rather than asking why is society set up this way, why do our production methods run things down to the bone for quick cash rather than strive for stability and harmony, most likely it would be like the capitalist will push for an alternative like: "I've run out of rum, I guess drinking this hand-sanitizer fluid will have to do!" This is why despite a high public awareness (and in the US a growing bi-partisan concern, though this manifests differently for liberal or conservative supporters) of many of these issues, there's really no popular push around it beyond either personal consumerist (and moralist) initiatives to "use less" or supporting this or that pro-capitalist scheme for "clean coal" or other market-friendly alternatives. So there's some cynacism and pessimism around environmental issues among regular people and I think that's why you get people who say, "well it will be up to my grandkids to have to deal with" or "hey, it will at least be warmer in Wyoming". Arguing the facts won't alter this much, but changing the balance and perception of class power could make people feel more confident to push for alternatives that make sense for workers. I mean if people don't feel confident asking for pay raises or better breaks as it is even though US productivity and profits have increased, then no wonder people don't feel confident in challenging the system to undergo large-scale reorganization for environmental reasons. Even among mainstream environmentalists, the new buzz-word is "Adaptation" to climate-change.

The wild-card is that energy expenses will leave workers sitting in floodlands, reading by candlelight, and freezing to death in the winter, before it impacts capitalist profits and production in a major way. Already we can see a little of how the energy crisis is pushed onto poor people before the system and big capitalists. So how workers respond to - what in the current organization of many modern cities (especailly Western US cities with large working class suburbs and little public transportation) would likely be felt as - a huge cut in wages due to fast-rising costs of living and commuting, will also be a huge factor in the course the ruling classes ultimately take in responding to these issues.

[ralfy]

The replacements for oil have very low energy returns and several cannot provide for petrochemicals easily.

[Kaoxic]

I'm cheering for solar!

[exeexe]

What would USA do with all their tanks and airplanes when they run out of cheap oil? Yeah thats the only reason why people worry about the shortage of oil ..

[Skyhilist]

After we use all of the oil? I seriously hope it doesn't come to that point - I mean if we leave literally none of it in the ground then we're doing worse than even I would have expected.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

given how insanely dependent our entire civilisation is on oil (it's not just transport and energy generation - our fertilisers, farm machinery, most of our plastics - the list goes on for a loooooong way) I can't imagine it will be pretty when it happens. The oil industry will join a long list of industries that have devoured what they rely on in pursuit of short-term profit, and the way society is currently structured it could bring us down with it.