The problem I have with the Peak Oil crowd isn't peak oil itself per se - the basic hypothesis is an obvious reflection of the on-going consumption of a finite resource. It's the rest of their predictions - little different from Revelations - that I find rather outlandish.

so, Pyrian, I'm curious: What exactly do you THINK is going to happen when Peak-Oil arrives and the output of fields like Ghawar is declining at over 10% a year because of irresponsible exploitation of the kind the Saudis have been engaging in for many years now?

What the hell do you think is going to happen? You think the advanced western economies are just going to find something else to use for fuel that's as good as oil?

If you think that, then you're even less well-attached to reality than the peak-oilers you dismiss.

Jay Hanson's predictions of a disasterous return to the bronze-age seem sober, conservative and responsible compared to the dreaiming of someone who thinks that Technology, and the Market, will save us. Not that you said that. But, what exactly are we supposed to do when fossil-fuels are declining at 10% a year, and we have no viable substitute? Hm?

I'm curious about something else. Why in the world are the Saudis selling their oil so cheap right now when they could hold back more of it and sell it for three or four times its current value in 10 years? Is it because we'll invade *them* if they don't pump all we want? Surely they know what's coming. And once that oil is gone, they're back to being a nomadic desert people, once their population has died off. What do they think's gonna happen to them once the oil is gone, and once the money they make from it is gone...or declining? That really interests me. Any thoughts?

I don't see any evidence that we're going to find something as good, but we don't need something as good to avoid returning to the bronze age. In fact, the current price of oil demonstrates fairly well that even something 1/2 to 1/3 as good is only resulting in a rather low rate of stagflation; honestly, I thought things would already be worse than they are. Solar, nuclear, and wind power are well poised to make sure that a return to the dark ages is not in the cards - economically. People make a lot of the fact that they're not likely to produce as much power as we're using while glossing over the fact that the vast majority of what we're using is basically wasted; the low cost of energy has made a virtue of inefficiency (e.g. Hummers). Politically, well, a good nuclear war or two can always throw off the ol' crystal ball, but I'm optimistic that that's not necessarily going to follow.

Meanwhile, things like new technologies for pumping extra oil that couldn't otherwise be reached don't change the fundamental expectation of a peak, but they do demonstrate an IMO very important factor of easing the decline. If all the oil disappeared tomorrow (and for some reason peak oil people like to treat it like that), that would indeed be quite disastrous, but if it's eased out over centuries, it's not going to be a big deal at all. Obviously the truth is likely to be somewhere in between.

I would far prefer that energy production methods which don't produce excess greenhouse gases were phased in long before we run out of oil.

Peak oil or nay, it's signif that

1. The quality of Saudi oil is declining.

2. Overall Saudi output is declining.

3. The number of Saudi rigs has soared.

This says to me that they are working harder to stay in place.

And that means consumers will pay at the pump. What will American lives be like if gasoline doubles? Whether or not we're at peak oil, the good cheap stuff is going to get (maybe alot) more expensive.

It's so cool that because of the Republicans all that money we pay at the pump will go to the producers and the oil companies, instead of as gas taxes to the US govt to invest in alternative fuels and the like. Yay Republicans! You guys really show the rest of us what responsibility looks like. How exciting - peak oil plus global warning - imagine all the crises ahead! A thrill packed adventure with plenty of planetary scale disasters, brought to you by those thrill-seekers, the GOP.

What will American lives be like if gasoline doubles?

It's more than doubled recently. A sort of stagflation will of course set in when (not if) it doubles again - it's already threatening. I'm just sayin'.

Q

This response not meant to be snarky, but in the

spirit of genuine inquiry:

Pyrian wrote:

I don't see any evidence that we're going to find something as good, but we don't need something as good to avoid returning to the bronze age. In fact, the current price of oil demonstrates fairly well that even something 1/2 to 1/3 as good is only resulting in a rather low rate of stagflation;

*********

You missed my point almost completely. Monetizing energy is the problem, not the solution. We need energy to make stuff. When there's not enough energy to make stuff, and do stuff, doing and making stuff become much more expensive, or simply impossible. We aren't going to run bulldozers on Solar, and we're not going to fly jets on wind-power, and making things like aluminum and stainless steel takes a lot of heat, heat that can be produced only by fossil fuels or nuclear power.

And exploiting alternative energy sources takes a great deal of energy too. Most of the solar cells we use are made from energy that comes from fossil fuels, for instance.

Just look around you. Think about all the energy it took to make everything you see: cars, buildings, clothes, food, everything. And it was all done in less than a century, using millions of years of ancient sunshine locked up in fossil fuels. No other energy source of such power exists to be exploited, and especially not if we use up most of the fossil fuels in our cars, heating and cooling our stupid McMansions in the desert, and similar idiocy.

So, one problem is what happens to economies when the *price* of fossil fuels goes up. The bigger problem is: what happens to economies when it becomes physically impossible to make stuff and do stuff?

********

honestly, I thought things would already be worse than they are. Solar, nuclear, and wind power are well poised to make sure that a return to the dark ages is not in the cards - economically. People make a lot of the fact that they're not likely to produce as much power as we're using while glossing over the fact that the vast majority of what we're using is basically wasted; the low cost of energy has made a virtue of inefficiency (e.g. Hummers).

********

True, but energy use is not divorced from politics.. the two things are intimately bound together. Waste is a matter of politics, just consider the Bush administration's evisceration of the CAFE standards as one example among countless.

And remember, energy it totally fungible (with the possible exception of sources like natural gas, that are tough to transport except through pipelines..)...if we don't use it, the Chinese will. The only way conservation and efficiency work is if *everyone* does it. If only some do it, and others don't, the others win. See Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. Nothing complicated here. You just can't assume that efficiencies will get us out of this mess. They may delay the Bad Day of Peak-Oil, but they don't eliminate the problem at all.

**********

Politically, well, a good nuclear war or two can always throw off the ol' crystal ball, but I'm optimistic that that's not necessarily going to follow.

*********

Nuclear war is one very plausible scenario... if a population gets restive enough, some leader will decide to blame someone else for the problem..and take care of that problem with all those nice nukes sitting in their silos. How could it be otherwise?

*******

Meanwhile, things like new technologies for pumping extra oil that couldn't otherwise be reached don't change the fundamental expectation of a peak, but they do demonstrate an IMO very important factor of easing the decline.

*********

Unless I misunderstood something here, you couldn't be more wrong. By exploiting existing fields even more radically, the final decline will be FASTER, not slower. Once heavily exploited fields go into decline, because they've been pumped too hard, and too fast, using all the technology at our disposal, they decline in the low double-digits, if we're lucky. Remember, all that oil pumped out faster is just going to be used. None will be saved. There will be no cushion.

***********

If all the oil disappeared tomorrow (and for some reason peak oil people like to treat it like that),

*****

Not true. All the peak-oilers I know of discuss this in very sober terms.. they/we are trying, rather desperately at this point, to make it clear that double-digit declines as are now being seen in the North Sea fields are a recipe for disaster. The oil won't disappear overnight. No-one in the Peak-oil camp says that. But it may become scarce a lot faster than anyone would like.

*********

that would indeed be quite disastrous, but if it's eased out over centuries, it's not going to be a big deal at all. Obviously the truth is likely to be somewhere in between.

*********

It's not going to be eased out over centuries. It's going to happen a lot faster than that, and every number I've seen bears that out.

*******

I would far prefer that energy production methods which don't produce excess greenhouse gases were phased in long before we run out of oil.

**********

Trust me...global warming is going to be fixed. We're just not going to have as much fossil fuel to burn....although if we turn to coal heavily in coming years, that could be a serious problem. Have you noticed what's happened to the stocks of coal companies lately?

I've been reading G.J. Meyer's new book "A World Undone" about the First World War. It is salutary reading for today. If you think powerful men who should know better don't make catastrophic mistakes, look no further than the run-up to the Great War. It is a text-book case of disasterously short-sighted, ignorant decision-making, coupled with savage unintended consequences. The story has much to teach us, right now.