Peak Oil

[Comrade Castro]

Hello comrades, I just watched this video called "Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors". Look it up Google video. It says pretty much that oil is running out. Right now! And in ten years, only a few places such as the some parts of the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela will still have oil, and even that is already running out. This means a total collapse of the capitalist economy. Without fuel, how do ships, trucks, and airplanes move? Globalization and pollution brought to a standstill by nature cutting us off? The whole rotten structure will come crashing down. Just seriously watch it, drastic changes in everything may be coming very soon. Opinions?

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 01, 2007 01:39 pm
Hello comrades, I just watched this video called "Oil, Smoke, and Mirrors". Look it up Google video. It says pretty much that oil is running out. Right now! And in ten years, only a few places such as the some parts of the Middle East, Russia, and Venezuela will still have oil, and even that is already running out. This means a total collapse of the capitalist economy. Without fuel, how do ships, trucks, and airplanes move? Globalization and pollution brought to a standstill by nature cutting us off? The whole rotten structure will come crashing down. Just seriously watch it, drastic changes in everything may be coming very soon. Opinions?
There is a plethora of books on "peak oil"; I subscribe to the theory myself. If you can, also get hold of the video, "The End of Suburbia," which is more focused on the American angle. US society -- work, shopping, housing -- has been built and predicated on cheap oil. When it's no longer cheap, the "American way of life" goes down the drain. And none too soon. American policy makers are aware of this imminent problem, and the current adventure in the Middle East is an attempt to stave off the inevitable -- for some time at least.

[TC]

Peak oil is a myth created by the oil companies (specifically shell ).

Its based on how oil companies control the price of oil.

For oil to be expensive, it needs to be scarce.

This means that they actually have a disincentive to look for too much of it: too many oil discoveries would make it too cheap.

So they limit oil exploration deliberately, in fact they pay some countries to stop drilling.

They then calculate the horribly scary 'energy shortage' based on known reserves, which they keep deliberately low in order to keep the price high.

This then leads to the belief that we're going to "run out" and soon, which has two policy implications: oil needs to be conserved so the price should be high (benefiting the oil companies); and oil is a precious strategic resource which is scarce enough that any nation has a vital interest in getting access to, by military means if necessary (benefiting the oil companies).

But this isn't how it actually works in real life because new oil discoveries occur when the oil companies want them to occur, so the 'peak' is always predicted to be close but never reached. In fact according to the original peak oil doomsday predictions oil production should have already peaked decades ago; it did not.

So there you go, unlike global warming, peak oil is a doomsday scenario very useful for big business.

[TheTickTockMan]

Undoubtedly so, comrade Tragic Clown, that at the heart of almost every claim made on the media nowadays is some evil corporation bent on bending the truth to its own ends -- but still -- oil is a nonrenewable resource. How much time do we have left before it runs out?

?~TTTM

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:36 pm
... but still -- oil is a nonrenewable resource. How much time do we have left before it runs out?


Keep in mind that no new major oil fields have been discovered during the past several years (though quite a few small ones). Probably good since with oil shortage we just might avoid heating the planet to the extent that it can't support major life forms any more.

[piet11111]

i have a relative that works as first mate with a well known shipping company and he is often busy working along the big oil operations.

trust me they are discovering plenty of new oil sites in the gulf of mexico and in russian teritorial waters.

if i had to estimate how long we can go ahead at current oil consumption levels i would put it at 200 years.

also dont bother too much about the whole global warming thing what we are going through is not that bad as the media would have you believe.
during pre-historic times the levels of greenhouse gasses where hundreds of times higher then they are now.
and concerning human greenhouse gas emissions a single vulcanic eruption spews out more of it then the whole of humanity in a year.

[Corvus]

Piet, are you a physical scientist? Or is this first mate? How did you create this 200 year estimate? Did you just pull it out of your ass; based on information a first mate who works on a ship, frequently contracted out by oil companies? (There are all legit questions, I would need answered, before taking your post seriously)

Is that seriously what your saying... Its so... Stupid. I don't think I've ever met someone who has based an arguement on such weak sources.


' I know Bush is right, cause I have a friend who works as a pest contractor for the department of education... And, from what he tells me, Bush was right to go into Iraq, so we should support him.'

Fucking hilarious. Awesome arguement, made me laugh. Idiot.

Now, peak oil. Theory. I subscribe to the theory of peak oil, but what Tragic Clown claims is not outrageous, and quite plausible. I am not a physical scientist, nor am I a physical geographer. I'll let the educated, and informed make decsions into the security of our energy. (Awwwh! I'm letting someone who knows something make the decsions, how un-this-site of me)

I however, will continue to reduce my dependancies on oil, for both moral, and enviromental reasons. Through premacultural ethics, and sound, proven, tactics of reducing oil comsumption. (When I say, proven, and sound. I mean walking instead of driving a selfish-moble aka automoble; pretty fucking sound science eh?)

On the global warming. Idiot. Fucking, ignornant uneducated, slob. Pick up an ecology journal, and read what happens when you change the water temperature by 2c. You'll find out; that it fucks with the very basic of clean, water.

M.Sc Ecological Management and Wildlife Ecology Corvus Corvax

[Comeback Kid]

Not really keen on either Peak Oil (see redstar200's rant on it) or parts of Global Warming.

BUT

We can a should ride theses out to our own advantage - promoting green alternatives. Biofuels and ethanol are viable alternatives and any reduction in emissions by industry is a good thing. ect ect

And Corus what does M.Sc mean, and isnt there a stormfront member with the same username (not calling you out)

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:16 am
Peak oil is a myth created by the oil companies (specifically shell ).

Its based on how oil companies control the price of oil.

For oil to be expensive, it needs to be scarce.

This means that they actually have a disincentive to look for too much of it: too many oil discoveries would make it too cheap.

So they limit oil exploration deliberately, in fact they pay some countries to stop drilling.

They then calculate the horribly scary 'energy shortage' based on known reserves, which they keep deliberately low in order to keep the price high.

This then leads to the belief that we're going to "run out" and soon, which has two policy implications: oil needs to be conserved so the price should be high (benefiting the oil companies); and oil is a precious strategic resource which is scarce enough that any nation has a vital interest in getting access to, by military means if necessary (benefiting the oil companies).

But this isn't how it actually works in real life because new oil discoveries occur when the oil companies want them to occur, so the 'peak' is always predicted to be close but never reached. In fact according to the original peak oil doomsday predictions oil production should have already peaked decades ago; it did not.

So there you go, unlike global warming, peak oil is a doomsday scenario very useful for big business.
Can you post some sources relating to Shell's involvement in this please.

...
The concept of a "peak oil" is not a myth, in that clearly their will be a peak oil because oil does not last forever, the predictions of when this will occur and the resulting effects have been a bit "done up" in some circles.

We don't really know how much oil is left or how much oil their is to be discovered and even a dwindling of oil reserves does not mean that society will collapse. Obviously much of todays world is run buy oil and if it was to all be sucked up in the next decade things would change... but then there is nothing peak oil dooms sayers could do anyway.

[fabiansocialist]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 04, 2007 12:30 pm
We don't really know how much oil is left or how much oil their is to be discovered and even a dwindling of oil reserves does not mean that society will collapse. Obviously much of todays world is run buy oil and if it was to all be sucked up in the next decade things would change... but then there is nothing peak oil dooms sayers could do anyway.
Hubbert´s prediction of peak oil for US oilfields was initially pooh-poohed, but has turned out to be as correct as such forecasts can be. His forecast for global peak oil is somewhere between 2007 and 2011. I´m not aware of any expert who disputes this. Policymakers in North America, East Asia, and Europe are well aware of this and we´ll see increasingly frantic efforts to control the remaining supply. The doom-and-gloom crowd (which includes me) are saying more careful use could make it last longer and give us time to explore alternatives. But when I hear of Texans using energy to chill their houses so that a log fire will be more authentic, I despair. Likewise I despair when I see the number of SUVs on American roads. The American way of life (i.e. profligate consumption) is doomed. None too soon. RIP.

[Corvus]

Masters in Science

[Janus]

peak oil (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49609)

peak oil (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41376)

The problem with the current predictions of peak oil theory is that no one's sure when supply will peak. Easily accessible oil may have peaked but there's still a lot of stored oil in the ground that isn't economical to extract at this point. By that point, certain alternative energies will also have become economically advantageous and improved to the point that we can depend less and less on oil. Thus, trying to decide when peak will peak is really immaterial, the point is that we need to find a sustainable energy source that we can replace it with.

[Sentinel]

While oil is a limited resource, I'd advice everyone to turn their bullshit detectors on 'high' (to borrow an expression from rs2k :P ) when it comes to issues of economic importance on this level for the capitalists. That's simply how capitalism works; I find it highly propable that the oil companies act in their interests and do everything in their power -- which is a lot -- to exaggerate both the risk of oil running out, and the consequences of such an event.

Also, even when/if it happens, 'the end of civilisation as we know it' is quite strong -- it's not like oil is the only energy source by far. It would mean harsh times if it happened now, sure, but I'm personally quite optimistic about the whole thing. For instance, while global warming hardly is a positive thing otherwise, several countries are already trying to consolidate and extend their control over the arctic region because of the oil that has been and potentially can be revealed under the melting ice.

In short, I'm confident mankind will tackle this problem handsomely once we have to, and that propably won't be tomorrow.

See the frequent topics of discussion sticky in this forum, it has a multitude of good threads on this subject, which in turn have links to other info sources.

[bcbm]

In short, I'm confident mankind will tackle this problem handsomely once we have to, and that propably won't be tomorrow.


If past civilizations are any evidence, I wouldn't be so confident. Human societies have tended to be very good at ignoring major problems that are looming over them until it is far too late, and they're forced to deal with the not-very-pleasant consequences.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 08, 2007 02:34 am

In short, I'm confident mankind will tackle this problem handsomely once we have to, and that propably won't be tomorrow.


If past civilizations are any evidence, I wouldn't be so confident. Human societies have tended to be very good at ignoring major problems that are looming over them until it is far too late, and they're forced to deal with the not-very-pleasant consequences.

I'm not saying we should ignore it. On the contrary I tried in my post to emphasise, that I do acknowledge that oil is a limited resource and that this will likely be a problem in the future -- just not as near future as some are depicting, and we likely will be prepared for it and no longer as dependant of oil as we are now, by then.

But regardless of everything we should put maximum effort in research for alternatives, as oil isn't exactly the cleanest source of energy imaginable, and because being dependant of a limited resource is a negative thing. I believe that a trinity of nuclear fusion, solar and wind will take over the role of oil in the future, likely within the next 100 years or so. My point in my last post was basically

a) that I do agree with those who suspect the oil companies, with the help of their henchmen controlling the media, of currently exaggerating the issue for the sake of profit -- an artificial scarcity lies in their interests and I just can't see why they wouldn't do it!

b) that what the thread title suggested -- that peak oil could mean 'the end of civilisation as we know it' -- isn't ..ehm, very likely if you ask me. The only reason why I can see that a humanitarian disaster of some magnitude (very likely mainly in the third world) could come out of this would be if the oil profiteers tried to keep us as dependant as possible of 'their product' into the last minute, which would be despicable.

But that civilisation would 'end' because of peak oil will stay as Derrick Jensens wet dream.

[Faux Real]

If there will be the necessary conditions for worldwide revolution anytime soon, peak oil would be the catalyst. If only...

[Vanguard1917]

Just as the stone age did not end for lack of stone, the oil age will not end for lack of oil. While this progress should not be seen as inevitable, it is highly likely that humanity will have moved on to other, more advanced sources (most obviously nuclear power) long before oil begins to run out. World trends already point to this:

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/kaplinsky-oil/table1.jpg

The change is even more marked for OECD countries:

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/kaplinsky-oil/table2.jpg

This pretty good article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2338/) argues that it is not running out of oil which should be worrying us, but the lack of dynamism in today's economy.

[RevSouth]

What of abiotic oil? Is it a credible theory at all? I really don't know that much about it.

But if it was true, then peak oil wouldn't be a worry at all.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:52 pm
Just as the stone age did not end for lack of stone, the oil age will not end for lack of oil. While this progress should not be seen as inevitable, it is highly likely that humanity will have moved on to other, more advanced sources (most obviously nuclear power) long before oil begins to run out. World trends already point to this:

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/kaplinsky-oil/table1.jpg

The change is even more marked for OECD countries:

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/kaplinsky-oil/table2.jpg

This pretty good article (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2338/) argues that it is not running out of oil which should be worrying us, but the lack of dynamism in today's economy.
Really? So more capitalism is the solution? Funny idea that... And I'm sure I've heard you suggest it before. :mellow:


Personally, anyone who tries to argue that there isn't going to be an end to the oil age is fucking stupid. The oil is going to run out eventually, the question is when...

Hubbard who successfully predicted that the US would peak in 1970 something also suggested that the world oil supply would peak in something like 2005. Of course, he didn't know all the facts, and I wonder what he would say now.

But regardless, the amount of oil extraction is going to peak some time in the next decade, no question. There is an increase in the use of oil, and it will continue, especially as countries such as China start developing more, cars become more common in under developed countries and so on.

What needs to happen is alternatives need to be developed, and the sooner the better. I prefer electricity to power cars and similar intra-city transport (public transport, or fat powered bikes are best of course). When it comes to long distance travel, I don't know what will happen. But jet planes aren't going to be flying as often as they currently are (I'm seeing the world while I still can...).

Anyway...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Peak oil in itself a fine theory, but the details are exaggerated by vested interests. The neo-luddites and primmies insist that after peak the line on the oil production graph will come crashing down bringing civilisation with it. There is no evidence for this hypothesis. But I would also be wary of predictions claiming the slope to be too gentle.

The sooner we wean ourselves off oil the better.

But I must remind people here that the general public barely knows Peak Oil exists. How many times has Peak Oil been mentioned? How much attention was given to the issue?

The problem is ignorance, not just of the general public but scientific ignorance as well. We should be preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, and we don't need to sacrifice civilisation or even advanced technology to survive, if anything more technology improves our chances.