Peak Oil is not Just About Fuel for Vehicles and Energy Needs!

For those who are aware of PO and its dawning impact on modern civilization, or are at least agnostic about the phenomena in the light of the information that is available and signals a real and impacting end to cheap and bountiful petroleum supplies, I wanted to point out that the changes due us are not just about location and driving.

For many, the other side of oil is rather invisible though it is a much a part of every aspect of modern life as gasoline is a part of driving a car. As people contemplate the eventual depletion of crude oil, (and hope for any increase and improvements in alternative energy sources) it is easy to overlook just how pervasive petrochemicals are. From plastics to fertilizers, oil courses through most modern materials like a dark blood. Without that blood flowing smoothly, there is far more to consider in relation to any preparations or major changes in lifestyle than driving and energy.

From candles to cameras, bras to basketballs, and telephones to toothpaste, petroleum provides the substances that fill the shape of today's life. No doubt about it.

It would have been so intelligent and functional to have supplanted and diverted the energy aspect of this problem so that we could at least maintain, (at near-affordable prices) the flow of crude for sole use in various materials we need to keep producing in order to maintain a semblance of what is considered normal today. But, alas, that is not the case. Major changes will come in a short time, due to the greed and shortsightedness behind us.

Here is a link to a list of items that rely on petroleum products, but it is by no means exhaustive. If something is made of synthetic materials, plastics, or chemicals, then petroleum is most likely involved.

http://www.saveandconserve.com/2007/05/petroleum_based_products_a_long_list.html

You can find more detailed information about to what degree petroleum plays a part in your life by doing a search on the Net. It can be shocking to some folks.

It's a hard rain gonna' fall.

and yes it is going to be bad.

With the amount of money involved, you don't think they'll find a way?

However, I've learned not to get into this with Peak Oilers, just as I don't with health enthusiasts.
Peak Oil Doom has become a religion -- another flavor of fin de siècle psychology.

We're throwing shit-tons of money at that problem, too, and it's not getting any better either. I don't trust that the government-corporate effort to r&d us out of the energy exhaustion crisis is going to be any more effective. The biggest thing I fear is that the "fix" will involve an even more heavy dependence on our enormous reserve of coal.

I've said this before ... we're looking at new problems with old solutions.

I'm highly skeptical that r&d is going to give us some as-yet unforeseen leap in clean energy production because it's an area of research that's been active for decades. Anyone who could produce large quantities of renewable energy with very little energy invested would become fantastically rich, whether it happened in 1950 or 2007. We're still waiting on that cheap energy, and we're running out of time until the peak is on us.

with all factors considered, is a very simplistic, tribal sort of life ahead and with vastly reduced numbers of people on this beloved, planet Earth. And the truly wealthy will be far ahead of the rest of us in securing a feudal position in that Brave New World. The middle-class will simply fall away, scowling miserably and saying, "Oh damn! Damn! Damn! Shit!" as they eek out any existence they have left.

But George Jetson, (my former patron saint) had me believing, along with many of you, that a fix was sure to come. Wouldn't that, in an ideal world, be the most wonderful and expected outcome? It sure would! But even our current political situation, along with the kind of media that would make Pravda of old blush, tells us that something is truly amiss and we are either going to submit to a virtual reality and ignore the facts, or wake up quickly and try to do our best to prepare and survive as organisms on a tumultuous planet it very trying times.

As I said to piedmont, forget I mentioned anything.

The sky is falling! The end is near! We shall all perish! Feel better? lol

Okay, another thread to be hidden since dialog is pointless.

They are pathetic misanthropes.

"Global warming is a myth propounded by hippies who hate capitalism and progress. They're pathetic misanthropes."

...All they do is look at millenia of human history and apply it to contemporary events. Damn them, trying to teach folks to wise up and learn for a change. They're just a plague, like that Zimmerman fella:

License To Kill

Man thinks 'cause he rules the earth he can do with it as he pleases
And if things don't change soon, he will,
Oh, man has invented his doom,
His first step was touching the moon,
Now, there's a woman on my block,
She just sits there as the night grows still.
And she says, "Who's gonna take away his license to kill?"

Now, they take him and they teach him and they groom him for life
And they set him on a path where he's bound to get ill,
Then they bury him with stars,
And sell his body like they do used cars,
Now, there's a woman on my block,
She just sits there facin' the hill.
And she says, "Who's gonna take away his license to kill?"

Now, he's hell-bent for destruction, he's afraid and confused,
And his brain has been mismanaged with great skill,
All he believes are his eyes,
And his eyes, they just tell him lies,
But there's a woman on my block,
Sitting there in a cold chill,
And she says, "Who's gonna take away his license to kill?"

Ya may be a noisemaker, spirit maker,
Heartbreaker, backbreaker,
Leave no stone unturne,
May be an actor in a plot,
That might be all that you got
'Til your error you clearly learn.

Now he worships at an altar of a stagnant pool
And when he sees his reflection, he's fulfilled,
Oh, man is opposed to fair play,
He wants it all and he wants it his way,
Now, there's a woman on my block,
She just sit there as the night grows still,
And she says, "Who's gonna take away his license to kill?"
-Bob Dylan

It's also studying trends.

Listen, never mind -- the end is near, we'll all perish, it's hopeless, let's kill ourselves, etc, etc.

That better? lol

Just briefly.

Melody do you have a notion as to what the new solutions are. I sat in a private luncheon with 50 other people and listened to Emery Lovins give his standard spiel on energy and how the technology is here if only people would listen to him and his fellows at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Sure he had a few ideas for conservation but his tech fixes for replacing oil was pure horse sh*t. I have followed Peak Oil for over 6 years. IMO we have likely passed the Peak and are on a a flat peak. What really is of most concern in the short run is the growing appetite of China and India. With the dollar loosing value day by day we cannot afford to compete with the world for oil in a sellers market.

I truly hope you are right, that somehow tech can pull a rabbit out of the hat. If it doesn't life for us will change in ways that keep me awake at night. Bob

...Emerging Asian industry, China in particular, will be the hand that pushes us over the peak oil precipice onto the downslope.

With the kind of politics we see going on simultaneously with PO, do they need to find a way? I ask that in a practical, conversational way, not as a rhetorical quesiton.

Yes, there are solutions for alternatives, (plus good old fashioned materials and methods now abandoned) being implemented, (and that is an underscore of the oil supply problem) but, like alternative energy, to late and too small to accomplish the kind of major revolution needed across-the-board in order to avert very hard times and drastic changes for large sectors of our population in America, and the rest of the World.

I am not a Peak Oiler. No matter what I have read, scientifically or statistically, I did not commit myself to this phenomena as an important, topical, public issue until most recently. Right now, there are enough substantial facts on the table to put this on another level of concern and above the topic of health enthusiasts. Like many other issues of our time, it is important to consider what is going on and be able to deal with and react to it in a realistic fashion.

Many people I have talked with that are not as concerned still consider Peak Oil a matter of when, not if. Even if the more optimistic ideas that push the peak farther in the future were true, (World output, OPEC, and the transition from light sweet crude to the more sludge-like variety don't agree) public awareness and our actions today should be focused on making large changes in a more gradual, intelligent way, rather than allowing it to strike suddenly and without preparation.

It does not matter then, if, instead of now, it is five, ten, or twenty years away: we have a major problem facing us all.

In that case, I disagree that this is about some form of end of the century psychology or a form of post-millennialism.

We're not facing these problems with the same skill sets/technologies as in the past.
We're doing more and more with less and less. It will be a struggle, but we'll survive.
And the methodologies that will be developed will do a nice detour around the oil tyrants.
We'll all be better for it, imho.

Right now, what we are seeing is that food prices are being impacted by the wonderous fix called bio-fuels. The demand for energy has caused basic food-stuffs, (like all-pervasive and important corn) to rise dramatically in price now and with greater potentials for that in the future.

I am all for new skills and technologies, if and when they are viable. I also know that, (being poor myself) that they are often rather expensive at first and usually only something priced for more wealthy, early adopters. How can I survive if I can't afford what is being offered? I can't eat a pie in the sky, you know ;)

What I am trying to break-through is the veil that has been dropped around those who live in the techno-fantasy crowd that this culture, (via media, movies, sci-fi, and high-tech publications) who tend to believe, with an almost religious fervor, that something new and create will automatically drop out the gloomy storm clouds just when we need it. I was there once, long ago. In fact, as a child, George Jetson was probably my Patron Saint in TeeVee Land. Over time, I leaned that, like various religious belief systems, there is also a techno-science cult and we were the dreamers and the visionaries who ended up being blatant consumers and experience pigs that began to rely on a quick and high-tech fix for every problem in our lives ... that all goes South when the money to pay for it runs out.

Then, you are only prone to become a sort of techno-Jethro who's only visions of star travel come by way of a blow to the head, a stand up rush, or the results of some substance you could manage to afford in order to have something approaching an intergalactic tour or an organic techno-wonder binge. The next day, its back to ordinary life and unimpressive realities like food, water, and paying bills. No cool buttons or gadgets or wondrous technologies are even in plain sight there. Its not far up the ladder from tribal or rural.

I am certainly aware of innovations, (and even the repression of some) on the energy, fuel, and materials fronts. I am just hard-pressed to see the overall impact they can have, in a very short time, to dethrone oil as it sits, like an ebony King, on the throne of modern life as we know it now.

So, please do let us know what reports you may have about new technologies that could really make major differences and provide replacements for the plethora of petroleum-based aspects of our lives in a few, short years in a way that most of us can afford to participate in.

How can I be sure that we are running out of oil, what is to keep the oil companies from saying we are running low when they profit more from a low supply of oil?

...that the large and the powerful have been lying to us for so long to futher thier own endsthat we can't quite believe what anyone tells us anymore.

This is not to be construed as a commentary on the commentary except in so far as someone brought up the point that energy companies may manipulate Peak Oil to their own ends and may be lying about how much they have left on hand...and I couldn't convince myself that they didn't, in fact, have a point there.

That if they lie about what they have left on hand, what is in surplus will go to those who can afford it?

It is always a winning proposition for those who control the resources and those who are closest to them in socio-economic status. It stands to reason that, when it comes down to it, a free market capitalistic system will suck the middle-class and poor dry while they assure themselves of, (as history has shown) being the very last to die? The sarcasm is intentional there. In other words, if the powers that be continue to dominate the scenario and are allowed to decide the timing and fixes for this scenario, than history shows us that they merely reserve for themselves the honor of being the last to suffer and die in the process.

Wow, now that's an interesting predicament for us all. Do we play it out that way again?

I can agree with and admire your skepticism. In fact, it is a good idea to maintain a stance like that until you have enough , reliable information to use your own discernment to make a decision. It certainly beats falling for convincing arguments, (for or against, or for AND against, anything) generated in the interests of social engineering.

Oil companies have been profiting, especially under this Administration, in record-breaking ways. They will most certainly profit if supply is outstripped by demand, so I think there interests there are more of a moot point about just how astronomical their profits can get. Of course, we can note, there profits do not benefit the public good in that they skim off the fruits of our labors, (sounding like a Marxist here) in that case. Some will argue with that even, but that is how I see it.

We see lower output, (is it contrived?) around the globe for major wells. We see world-wide demand for oil increase above what has been predicted. Now, unless oil is actually what lubricates the Earth's mantle or it is created by bacteria and will replenish itself, we do have a bona fide problem.

And so, when that part becomes clear, (be about when rather than if, if you choose to) we see that right here and now, the changes we have to make are looming before us. They are not popular changes and they are going to be diametrically opposed to the kind of labor-saving, commuter, consumer life-styles we have been assimilated into over the last seventy years. While the urban and city folk have many issues to contend with, it is the suburbanites who will be impacted the most and affected first.

So, keep the discussion going. This does not have to be so much about for and against, or yes and no, as about what should we be doing in the face of what appears to be a non-renewable life-blood for our idea of what life is and should be. Maybe it can be geared towards speculations of what you might do if Peak Oil were a real concern for you.

How would life look and be without an affordable and sustainable flow of crude through your life?

So many people just don't realize how many products are made from petroleum. Once all the Earth's oil runs out, I seriously think civilization will functionally revert back to how it was in the 19th century.

at least coal that we can mine and get to where it is needed. so we would be back to a preindustrial age. unless of course we somehow have some sort of new energy source that we create really quick. Fusion, perhaps, since all the other ones won't make near enough energy to run our civilization.

when the OPECers first embargoed oil. The original peak oil papers were published in the 1950s, and the implications should have been understood within the government, at the least. But it was easier, and more convenient, to ignore the situation, to pretend it would go away, to whistle absent-mindedly while awaiting some uncertain salvation, than to make the hard choices and force the unpleasent changes that might have made a difference 30 or 50 years ago. Instead, everyone carried on as though the party would never end.

Unfortunately, there are a host of other environmental and economic issues that have also been ignored, everything from a crumbling infrastructure to deteriorating water quality, growing stockpiles of nuclear waste and entire oceans dying, massive acreage of farmland succumbing to salinity . . . the list seems endless and our solutions tepid at best.

It won't be a hard rain unless we let loose the Bombs. No, Eliot foresaw the end: just a miserable whimper after a season of despair.

Perhaps we can also make reference to Yates and The Second Coming.

This so-called crisis is only one in a more public sense, and yet, there are people who live in the dreams that the Matrix weaves with precise calculations. The machines will most assuredly fight back, but not intelligently, aggressively and actively. They will just continue to gradually cease to function and the blood of modern life will drip, drip, drip out into the dry and heartless sands of the desert that modern civilization dissolves into because it lacks foresight and resistance to blind greed.

veloped. Check out what Norway and some other countries are doing. Check out the latest in solar.

What is scaring the oil producers and refiners is that cheaper and cleaner alternatives are being developed at a fast pace.

Frankly I think oil should be used for things like petroleum jelly, not power. True the other uses are pervasive and perhaps we need to start making a list of the uses upon which we agree no substitute will ever be found.

much more progressive, democratic, and realistic. That is for sure.

But I am talking about America. We are probably rank highly on the delusional, manipulated scale. We hardly educate our children to think, write, communicate, and act effectively, let alone rely on them to be able to discern truths from complicated issues rife with counter-arguments generated by intentionally diversionary propaganda.

I am talking about the kind of money and dominance and control that issues forth from a country with an oil pResident who represents oil interests, first and foremost, and functions within a political philosophy that is embodied by the framework at the PNAC site, (Progress for a New American Century). What PNAC boils down to for me is that oil is power and power is money, etc. It just goes around and around. Oil is a power-base here and it is well-entrenched to the point that the so-called major powers are going to struggle for control of it. Is it necessary? Maybe not in essence, but the principles behind it demand that it be so. How are we to know for sure if Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia are in league, or fighting against each other for control of resources, or not?

When America has so much invested, (more so than in social needs and services than ever before) in our military, what can we expect as the outcome and result of our combined labors? A fix for an energy crisis that might have simple, affordable, and not to painful solutions? Well, if they were encouraged and subsidized, then they might be affordable and quickly available to the masses here, and that would be a real solution. But they are not! The overall climate here in the US is that the powers that be will continue to be and the people be damned in the process. So, how then, do I switch over to techno-fantasy-fix mode and bask in the glow of scientific discovery when a free market already tells me that only the dollar and those who can pay it can have the results? That is, considering that the larger number of people who are impacted are in a lower-income situation, than not.

which uses natural gas, not petroleum.....

(The Haber Process is the second largest industrial process in the world - it needs a LOT of cheap hydrogen to keep it running, so it uses natural gas for the most part)

Thanks for your input.

We do know that the plastic bottle that the ammonia comes in, along with the transportation to the store, requires petroleum for the most part. We don't know how much petroleum-based energy was used in it's overall production, though, besides the hydrogen aspect.

We might want to take our petroleum-scope and look at all the supporting aspects of that plant and ask ourselves how it would function without the stuff, from the plastic bags for the snacks in the vending machines to the trips, to and fro, by the workers. I bet we could go through that plant with our petroleum finder and determine that it would either function at a much higher cost as petroleum goes scarce, or not at all, in the end.

and driving with it.

Natural gas will have its own peak. We can't run something as big as the Haber Process from it forever.

(The Haber Process also provides most of our fertiliser - made using ammonia, you see)

all you need is a source of carbon compounds. Oil is the cheapest source of that carbon right now, but it is not the only source.

so that we can still have a technological civilization that wouldn't be so overpriced that only the uber-rich could survive.

Plastics derived from soybeans, hemp, algae and other such plants. Old methods for agriculture will be used again, with modern refinements. You are correct that there will be some hard times, but as with all that is involved with Peak Oil, we need to start the conversion now. Sadly, both corporate America and our government are short sighted, looking forward only to the next fiscal year, the next election, the tick of the stock market and the sway of the polls and campaign donations. Our government and social structure does everything to prevent long term thinking or long term planning, so we're indeed going to see a hard rain fall.

I seem to recall that Cheney was one of the first to endorse this idea when he saw how useful it would be. On the other hand, I try to keep an open mind when I hear ideas, so I dug on this one.

Madhound points out correctly that we don't need oil for plastic. Plant oil would be fine. Hemp would be great, but there are alternatives. Ditto for fertilizer- why do we have a surplus of manure in the US?

I don't like the push for biofuel- the oil people simply wanted to find a way they could profit off of the next big thing. What could be more perfect than using fossil fuels to make biofuels to these people? Solar has made huge strides in the last two years- a film that costs roughly what oil energy would cost, and today the announcement of a kind of paint that you can apply to film or fabric yourself.

Peak oil is a myth, but a useful one, IMO. So what if we have plenty of oil? We should be using clean fuels and quit screwing the earth up both mining for the fossil stuff and using it, not to mention spilling it. :D

I'll just pass on the news.

Thanks for clearing that up, and welcome.

Thank you for the welcome. I'm a long time lurker, but I'm working on a major response to something that floored me yesterday which made me decide to join and pitch in my 2 cents.

I understand the lure of the idea of Peak Oil- but like any good scientist, I hate when things start popping up in the equation that don't fit. I just find it convenient in the way I find global warming convenient- It's nice that it's now popular to think environmentally, but bothers me that most people stop worrying about it when doesn't involve CO2 now.

Since I was posting on the fly, let's go back and review the sources I found when I panicked about Peak oil myself. Mind you, some of this leads to more disturbing ideas than Peak Oil, but I like to know what's REALLY happening, no matter how unsettling it is.

http://www.geotimes.org/june03/NN_gulf.html

http://www.huliq.com/19627/exxon-drills-world-s-deepest-well-at-its-russian-sakhalin-1-project

The reserves are greater, and we are drilling deeper than ever. A clever fellow at MIT even figured out how to drill deeper without drill bits:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

I'm not a proponent of using more oil, but I see this as "Artificial Scarcity" and creating "controlled chaos" as well as setting the stage for rationing, as well as a tidy profit for those who are in on it. Think it isn't possible?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071907J.shtml

I think the future lies in the past- all I hear from the Peak Oil crowd is "How are we going to live without oil?!?!!?" My guess is pretty well. I don't like smog, I'm not fond of plastic in the oceans, and for those who say we can't produce enough food without the oil based fertilizer and pesticide for everyone, we need to deal with our population problem...sooner rather than later. As someone pointed out earlier, if we were really in a cycle of scarcity, alternatives would have popped up by now, and the oil companies wouldn't be looking so smug about their profits.

The first one, in particular, deals with potential discoveries the vast majority of which would be "unconventionally recoverable." Quite dubious since discoveries of recoverable oil reserves have been in decline since around the mid-sixties, even with all the seismic mapping and ultra-deep-water exploration, which is nothing new. The theory behind these purported reserves also seems to depend on abiogenic oil sources--highly dubious, and that's a generous assessment. If anything, the fact that ChevronTexaco--which, you may remember, was the first oil company to kinda-sorta acknowledge peak oil with their "Will You Join Us" campaign--is pouring money into this project tells me that oil companies are trying anything at this point to avoid what's coming. Then there's the cost and the time and the energy investment needed to get these (theoretical) reserves online. I assume this study is related to the discovery of Jack 2 in the Gulf, which has been analyzed in depth and is not likely to produce oil quickly, cheaply or abundantly enough to even make a dent in the oil decline. All in all, I'm confused as to how this convinced you that a peak in the global supply of proven oil resources isn't happening.

The second article is practically a press release for ExxonMobil. In any event, it says the peak production for this project was 250 kbpd-a drop in the barrel, in the grand scheme of things.

The third article has to do with geothermal energy, so I'm not sure why you listed it.

What you mean by "the reserves are greater" I can't tell. Greater than what? Peak oil is not about the absolute amount of oil still left in the earth--there is still an enormous amount--it's about the rate of extraction decreasing over time.

As for "artificial scarcity," you seem to suggest that oil companies are behind PO research. The fact is, oil companies and exporting countries have little to gain and much to lose by even acknowledging that peak oil is happening. I don't expect they will until our economy suffers serious shocks, at which point oil will be available, but prohibitively expensive. (An early exception is Mexico.) Your assumption that "alternatives would have popped up by now" assumes that such alternatives exist. As Kunstler recently pointed out--and I don't rely on him for the facts, generally, but just to give due credit for the phrase--technology and energy are not the same thing. The fact is, if there were alternative sources of cheap energy that could replace oil we would have developed them--or at least discovered them--by now, since there would always be a market for cheap energy regardless of whether or not we were in a cycle of scarcity, as you put it. (Remember the cold fusion debacle?) More generally, this way of thinking reflects an illusion created by the oil age itself--that cheap, abundant, and easy-to-obtain energy is just a fact of life in the modern world. It's not, not without cheap oil, and we may soon learn that the hard way. Furthermore, I think you gloss over the economic and social changes that will result. This is about much more than the end of smog. This is about fundamental changes to the way we live and the way our economy works.

Since you're a scientist, I'm sure you've read some of the extensive, detailed and well researched work by the petroleum geologists at The Oil Drum. If not, I invite you to look into some of the data their members have compiled. I, like you, was a skeptic at first, but the reality of this problem is not going away no matter how much potential we see in new technology or the market, or even existing alternatives.

As I said, I'm not for using more oil. If anything, I'd be happy if this gets people off it. I'm just not for the panic it's causing, nor the mindset that "Maybe we DO need to go rob the mideast, so I can keep my standard of living"

I found some other articles while I was surfing about this and getting refamiliarized(This is not exactly my fav subject :P) that were talking about deeper drilling in the Gulf Of Mexico, so that may indeed be relevant. As to the Abiotic, I'm currently on the fence about that. The Russians are either lying, or they are on to something.

The second article was to address increased capability, even at likely greater cost, barrels in vs barrels out.

I listed the geothermal drilling method, because as I understand it, the problem of cost in vs cost out is partly due to the cost of replacing drill bits as you go deeper, and having to remove the drill to do so. The MIT kid has an idea for replacing the drill with a flame, and while you wouldn't want to drill the entire bore with that(I would assume), you could use the seismic readings to cut 3/4 or a tad closer and finish the normal way.

As for the alternatives, I'd like to test them myself to be sure, but I know there are some good ideas in play. On top of the solar I mentioned, the Chinese seem to be getting places with hot fusion tech, and I'd like to see a good source of energy mated with hydrolysis for our portable or storable fuel. I'd also like to see hemp legalized and use that for plastic, paper and biomass for topsoil replenishment

As for the economic and social changes- I sure hope so! I hope everyone who is holding us in stasis creating the basis for the problems brought up by the peak oil crowd get flushed. Too bad that won't happen. A great "Miracle" will be revealed, and the same people will still be on top.

When I was going to school 20 years ago, they were teaching us that all of the oil supplies in the world would be used up in 20 years. Too bad they haven't. Even so, my first thought was that then they would run the natural gas supplies into the ground, and after all our non-renewable would be gone, then we MIGHT figure out something better. In the mean time, the Oil companies CERTAINLY do benefit from the belief that they are running short on product, whether they are or not(and as I said, they look like cats at an all you can eat sushi bar). They make more producing less. It works quite well for the diamond producers, I've heard.

Normally, I'd check the group out you mentioned, but as I said, I'd rather get us off the black stuff and off the bad habits the peak oil crowd point out, so in the end, the myth benefits my goals.

Hmm...thank you for clarifying my position for me. The problem I have with the peak oil movement is it's dependence on the stuff. I told a rabid and well informed environmentalist the other day about soybean plastic(Thank you Dr. Julian :P), and she was floored. She had bought into the idea that plastic MUST come from crude oil. Just the simple idea that oil didn't have to rule her life got her to stretch her brain a bit. I suggest the same for others- there ARE solutions, and if we can get some people behind them, we might not ever have to find out if peak oil is real or not. We could just leave that damn stuff in the ground :D

resource that renews at a rate greater than our rate of consumption.

.. it's awesome, read it, 'The Oil We Eat'
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915