Whatever happened to “peak oil”?

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

Yes, I agree that is the danger/dilemma but perhaps there's a middle way. Global warming is neither a hoax nor a non-issue (not that all capitalists do argue this; it's that, because of profit considerations and vested interests, they can't agree on what to do and so are not doing much effective about it). Personally, I'm not so convinced about peak oil, but others here might disagree.Anyway, supposing that you are right about peak oil, what do you see as "the answer"?

It's absurd that you are "not so convinced about peak oil" because peak oil is a scientific fact, not a theory. Perhaps you are referring to the point in which oil production will drop, which is debatable. But it's also irrelevant because the effects of peak oil can take place even before oil production drops, i.e., when demand exceeds supply.That has been the case since 2005 for crude oil, which is why oil prices tripled and we're now resorting to unconventional oil. What's the problem with that? Our required energy returns, which is what we need to use computers to access this board, are high and cannot be covered by lower crude oil production or unconventional oil. For more details, readhttp://theconversation.com/peak-oil-is-alive-and-well-and-costing-the-earth-17542That means in time we will be forced to lower resource and energy consumption, and it will be lowered still as population increases and environmental damage coupled with global warming (both worsened given our use of unconventional oil) affects resource availabilty.What can reverse that will involve strong government intervention and businesses cooperating with them. For more details, try the IEA 2010 report:http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.htmlThe catch is that such cooperation hasn't happened for the past six decades or so. Instead, we see a financial elite trying to profit as much as they can, businesses doing the same, governments allowing such in exchange for more tax revenues, and military forced used to control resources, etc. There has been no cooperation or coordination at all, let alone preparation for peak oil or global warming.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

The catch is that such cooperation hasn't happened for the past six decades or so. Instead, we see a financial elite trying to profit as much as they can, businesses doing the same, governments allowing such in exchange for more tax revenues, and military forced used to control resources, etc. There has been no cooperation or coordination at all, let alone preparation for peak oil or global warming.

That seems an accurate description of how the capitalist states into which the world is divided are unable to deal with problems that affect the whole world, but what would you suggest should be done about it?

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

That seems an accurate description of how the capitalist states into which the world is divided are unable to deal with problems that affect the whole world, but what would you suggest should be done about it?

That is beyond the scope of this thread. My goal is to answer the question, "Whatever happened to 'peak oil'?" I believe I answered it. For those who want a clearer explanation:http://theconversation.com/peak-oil-is-alive-and-well-and-costing-the-earth-17542And a more detailed one:http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/take/peak-oil-isnt-dead-it-just-smells-that-way/963I think arguing that peak oil is "alive" is necessary.Finally, I think the response from 1970 needs to be updated significantly. After all, we now face a population that doubled from 1960 to 2000 coupled with a much larger middle class, increased resource consumption per capita, a twentyfold increase in arms production worldwide, long-term effects of environmental damage and global warming, and more.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

That is beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't see why it is. If you just denounce "peak oil" and leave it at that you could be taken for a Jeremiah (as Cameron has just called Vince Cable) or a mere doomster. Which I take it you aren't.I would say that, even assuming you are right, the only framework within which the problem could be solved would be one where all the resources, natural and industrial, of the world have become the common heritage of all the world's population. Only on that basis can a rational policy be implemented to deal with global warming and peak oil.If you believe that a solution can be found within the present world capitalist system then you would in fact be prolonging the problem and allowing it to get worse.

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

I don't see why it is. If you just denounce "peak oil" and leave it at that you could be taken for a Jeremiah (as Cameron has just called Vince Cable) or a mere doomster. Which I take it you aren't.I would say that, even assuming you are right, the only framework within which the problem could be solved would be one where all the resources, natural and industrial, of the world have become the common heritage of all the world's population. Only on that basis can a rational policy be implemented to deal with global warming and peak oil.If you believe that a solution can be found within the present world capitalist system then you would in fact be prolonging the problem and allowing it to get worse.

What you are asking for is beyond the scope of this thread given the thread title. Put simply, the question, "Whatever happened to 'peak oil'?" implies that there is no problem concerning peak oil, and since there is no problem, then there is no need to seek a solution. This makes your request illogical, unless you are now acknowledging that the question is irrelevant and that peak oil should be taken seriously. If so, then I suggest that you create a new thread where you mention that peak oil is a major issue and ask for solutions.I also do not understand why you argue, "even assuming you are right," as this makes me feel that I am wasting my time, i.e., having to give a solution to a problem that you argue does not exist.Finally, I never believed that "the present world capitalist system" will solve the problem of peak oil. If any, I explained that the same system will fall apart because of such a problem. 

[Brian]

ralfy wrote:

Finally, I never believed that "the present world capitalist system" will solve the problem of peak oil. If any, I explained that the same system will fall apart because of such a problem. 

That capitalism "will fall apart" over peak oil is debatable and depends on whether or not a majority stop supporting capitalism and start deciding on a valid alternative.  Peak oil is of course proving to be a problem for energy reserves within capitalism but capitalism thrives on such problems and although oil reserves may well take a hammering (if as suggested in the link) by 2020 whilst a majority accept the myth of TINA capitalism will continue to exploit every opportunity market contradictions throws up.  Obviously when that hammering starts to have a major effect it will be the 99% who'll suffer the most.Based on the historical evidence of how previous societies transformed themselves it took more than one failure of production to bring the revolutionary process into being.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

What you are asking for is beyond the scope of this thread given the thread title. Put simply, the question, "Whatever happened to 'peak oil'?" implies that there is no problem concerning peak oil, and since there is no problem, then there is no need to seek a solution. This makes your request illogical, unless you are now acknowledging that the question is irrelevant and that peak oil should be taken seriously. If so, then I suggest that you create a new thread where you mention that peak oil is a major issue and ask for solutions.

This seems a bit pedantic. I would have thought that it made sense to discuss all aspects of "peak oil" on one thread.

ralfy wrote:

I also do not understand why you argue, "even assuming you are right," as this makes me feel that I am wasting my time, i.e., having to give a solution to a problem that you argue does not exist.

This is not just a dialogue between you and me. I may have started this thread but there are others on this forum who probably won't take the same position as me (in fact I was assuming some won't) and will be interested in hearing your solution to the problem you and they perceive.

ralfy wrote:

Finally, I never believed that "the present world capitalist system" will solve the problem of peak oil. If any, I explained that the same system will fall apart because of such a problem.

Well, at least that confirms that you are not a lobbyist for some rival source of energy to drive capitalist industry, e.g nuclearpower but it still leaves open the question of how you propose to deal with the problem. Are we to just sit around and wait for the capitalist system to fall apart? Or should we take to the hills, as the doomsters advise?

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

This seems a bit pedantic. I would have thought that it made sense to discuss all aspects of "peak oil" on one thread.

That's what I am doing, but I don't think you understand even the basics of this issue, which is why I had to address your first post by raising points that you did not consider. AFAIK, you did not counter any of my arguments and still believe that "doomsayers" are wrong. Given that, wouldn't it be pedantic to ask for solutions for a problem that you insist does not exist?

Quote:

This is not just a dialogue between you and me. I may have started this thread but there are others on this forum who probably won't take the same position as me (in fact I was assuming some won't) and will be interested in hearing your solution to the problem you and they perceive.

The way I see it, this is not a debatable issue, unless there is something that I stated earlier that you still question. Otherwise, I will wait and see if you acknowledge peak oil as a problem. That is the only way for me to see your request for solutions as relevant.

Quote:

Well, at least that confirms that you are not a lobbyist for some rival source of energy to drive capitalist industry, e.g nuclearpower but it still leaves open the question of how you propose to deal with the problem. Are we to just sit around and wait for the capitalist system to fall apart? Or should we take to the hills, as the doomsters advise?

I don't see nuclear power as a "rival source of energy" due to the absence of petrochemicals, the difficulty of using it for ship transport, the lack of portability for smaller vehicles, the fact that it also faces problems similar to oil and other physical resources, and the point that in terms of the environment it can be just as dangerous as oil, if not worse. 

[ALB]

Ok, forget "peak oil" or agree to disagree on it and move on to global warming. I agree with you that this is happening, so how do you think that problem could be solved or at least mitigated?I must confess that I am beginning to think that your refusal to commit yourself on solutions is disguising the fact that you don't think there is one and think we are all doomed and thst the best an individual can do is to stock up on food and a gun and take to the hills to await the impending collapse of capitalism and/or civilisation.

[Brian]

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

This seems a bit pedantic. I would have thought that it made sense to discuss all aspects of "peak oil" on one thread.

That's what I am doing, but I don't think you understand even the basics of this issue, which is why I had to address your first post by raising points that you did not consider. AFAIK, you did not counter any of my arguments and still believe that "doomsayers" are wrong. Given that, wouldn't it be pedantic to ask for solutions for a problem that you insist does not exist?

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

This is not just a dialogue between you and me. I may have started this thread but there are others on this forum who probably won't take the same position as me (in fact I was assuming some won't) and will be interested in hearing your solution to the problem you and they perceive.

The way I see it, this is not a debatable issue, unless there is something that I stated earlier that you still question. Otherwise, I will wait and see if you acknowledge peak oil as a problem. That is the only way for me to see your request for solutions as relevant.

I've implied previously that I for one – having followed the argument for several years – are interested in this subject.  But I do not place any trust in the evidence from both sides.  On the one hand OPEC and other major oil producers will never reveal the real reasons for any decrease in production capacity. Therefore all the so called evidence that oil production has peaked (or is on the verge of peaking) are based on present consumption figures and the assumption that oil well pressure is falling globally due to wells running dry. Obviously, through having being denied the true figures the doomsayers are on rocky ground when moving the argument from reaching an assumption and then making a conclusion.  Which means in effect their predictions are all based on possible problems and not probable problems.Nevertheless, despite the lack of accurate science I am prepared in this instance to give the doomsayers the benefit of the doubt.  Because being a socialists its in my interest to be prepared for such an eventuality possibly occurring. And more importantly so I'm in a position to counter the negative solutions which undoubtedly are on offer.To date ralfy agreed that there is no solution for peak oil within the framework of capitalism but  nevertheless has failed to agree that a solution is to be found within the socialist system advocated by the wsm/spgb.  I have to assume, therefore he has his own solution but is keeping it under wraps in his own self-interest. To adopt such a fence sitting attitude does nothing to move the discussion forward and ultimately places the discussion locked in the time warp of the 1970's with all the scaremongering of the end of growth, etc.That said and if I'm correct ralfy is also on very rocky ground simply due to the fact that any solution he may have on offer needs to go through a rigrious and robust examination to ensure its not just another logical fallacy and before its in danger of falling into the trap of self-delusion.

[ralfy]

Brian wrote:

I've implied previously that I for one – having followed the argument for several years – are interested in this subject.  But I do not place any trust in the evidence from both sides.  On the one hand OPEC and other major oil producers will never reveal the real reasons for any decrease in production capacity. Therefore all the so called evidence that oil production has peaked (or is on the verge of peaking) are based on present consumption figures and the assumption that oil well pressure is falling globally due to wells running dry. 

THe fact that several OPEC producers are not allowing external audits is bad news. The logical thing to do is to assume a worst-case scenario rarther than hope that they are not allowing for such only because they want to artificially limit production and keep prices high. Keep in mind that high oil prices ultimately work against oil producers, as it increases oil production costs and weakens demand.What makes matters worse is that even with a tripling of oil prices Saudi Arabia has not been able to increase production readily. For example, in 2009, they argued that they would easily breach 15 Mb/d easily by 2011, and two years later barely reached 10 Mb/d.Finally, FWIW, two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or gone past peak oil.

Quote:

Obviously, through having being denied the true figures the doomsayers are on rocky ground when moving the argument from reaching an assumption and then making a conclusion.  Which means in effect their predictions are all based on possible problems and not probable problems.

Being "denied the true figures" works both ways. Given that, what we can do is look at other news, such as the use of sea water to obtain more oil in Ghawar, and plans to put Manifa online. More can be seen in the use of more expensive unconventional oil and failure to increase crude oil production given even a tripling of oil prices. Even the fact that this predicament now goes way beyond OPEC producers shows that realities of peak oil cannot be hidden:http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9946

Quote:

Nevertheless, despite the lack of accurate science I am prepared in this instance to give the doomsayers the benefit of the doubt.  Because being a socialists its in my interest to be prepared for such an eventuality possibly occurring. And more importantly so I'm in a position to counter the negative solutions which undoubtedly are on offer.

Peak oil is not just "accurate science" but basic science: oil is a finite resource. The opposite argues that it is an infinite resource.Given that, I cannot imagine a situation where peak oil cannot happen.

Quote:

To date ralfy agreed that there is no solution for peak oil within the framework of capitalism but  nevertheless has failed to agree that a solution is to be found within the socialist system advocated by the wsm/spgb.  I have to assume, therefore he has his own solution but is keeping it under wraps in his own self-interest. To adopt such a fence sitting attitude does nothing to move the discussion forward and ultimately places the discussion locked in the time warp of the 1970's with all the scaremongering of the end of growth, etc.

As I explained earlier, there is no solution to peak oil, which is a predicament. The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament by lowering oil demand while maximizing oil and gas production, and moving to renewable energy.Finally, I don't think we can remain locked in 1970 because the global population is now almost twice as large, the global middle class growing, the effects of environmental damage and global warming more pronounced, and oil and food prices a lot higher than ever.

Quote:

That said and if I'm correct ralfy is also on very rocky ground simply due to the fact that any solution he may have on offer needs to go through a rigrious and robust examination to ensure its not just another logical fallacy and before its in danger of falling into the trap of self-delusion.

The first thing that needs to be done is to acknowledge that the peak oil crisis is real. Otherwise, it is illogical to ask for solutions to a problem that isn't recognized.Second, we should consider the point that peak oil is not a problem but a predicament, which means any action in response to it won't be a solution but a means to adjust to the reality of physical limitations. That adjustment will basically take the form of decreasing resource consumption and energy.Third, we need to differentiate between peak oil not taking place and peak oil not taking place during a certain period. The first implies that oil is an infinite resource, and that's not the case given the standpoint of a human race that cannot wait for millions of years before more supplies are made available.The second does not in any way confirm the first. We can use unconventional oil in place of crude oil, nuclear power, etc., but the physical limitations remain, and not just for materials needed to obtain, store, and use energy but even for other matters, such as phosphorus needed for agriculture, fossil fuels needed for petrochemicals and shipping transport, etc. Also, any transitions do not take place easily, conveniently, or quickly. 

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

Ok, forget "peak oil" or agree to disagree on it and move on to global warming. I agree with you that this is happening, so how do you think that problem could be solved or at least mitigated?

We should probably create another thread for that topic.

Quote:

I must confess that I am beginning to think that your refusal to commit yourself on solutions is disguising the fact that you don't think there is one and think we are all doomed and thst the best an individual can do is to stock up on food and a gun and take to the hills to await the impending collapse of capitalism and/or civilisation.

A problem is something that has a solution, and a solution is an action that will allow you to maintain what was in place prior to the problem appearing. Here's what I mean:Peak oil refers to a peak in oil production, and after that a drop. If that is a problem, then the solution is obviously to find more oil.What is the problem with using unconventional oil? It's not a solution. Shale oil, together with much of unconventional oil, has lower energy returns, in addition to creating another set of environmental problems.The only solution to this problem is to find more crude oil, especially light oil such as that in West Texas and Ghawar. But oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and the fact that we are now metaphorically scraping the bottom of the barrel with unconventional oil shows that there is no solution to this problem.Now, theoretically, one can move to renewable energy, but it will take decades to do so, and more important cooperation between governments as well as a significant decrease in resource consumption per capita worldwide. That means everyone will have to sacrifice and target an ecological footprint per capita equivalent to that of Cuba. With that, infrastructure needed for tasks such as accessing this forum will not be sustainable. People will have to focus on localization, which includes permaculture, planting, preserving, and storing food, herbal and alternative medicine, etc.Obviously, governments, including socialist ones, will not allow for such, because someone will have to pay even for state-controlled transport and delivery systems, etc., not to mention politicians (socialist or otherwise) who wil come up with plans on what to do. The only way to feed them and to ensure maintenance of manufacturing, mining, etc., is to have the opposite of localization. But that still does not solve the problem of peak oil. Rather, it allows societies to wind down from consumer spending and free market capitalism towards using fewer resources each time.Thus, peak oil, like global warming, is not a problem. It's a predicament. Unless we find more large amounts of crude "easy oil" similar to that of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia during the heyday of production and high energy returns, then there can be no solution to peak oil. The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament, and that means using fewer resources and localize.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

Ok, forget "peak oil" or agree to disagree on it and move on to global warming. I agree with you that this is happening, so how do you think that problem could be solved or at least mitigated?

We should probably create another thread for that topic.

Ok, there's already a thread on this here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/global-warmingSo let's continue this point there.

ralfy wrote:

The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament, and that means using fewer resources and localize.

The chances of "using fewer resources and localize" happening within capitalism are nil. The only framework within which this could be implemented would be a society where the Earth's natural and industrial resources had become the common heritage of all. Because only on that basis would humans be in a position to choose what to do without being subject to the economic laws and profit considerations that capitalism imposes.Such a society would not only be free to eliminate the huge waste of resources under capitalism but also to develop other, at present unprofitable, sources of energy. We could have a world in which everybody's needs could be met without having to wear hair shirts or abandon entirely living in towns and cities or the worldwide productive network that has developed.

[ALB]

ralfy wrote:

Peak oil is not just "accurate science" but basic science: oil is a finite resource. The opposite argues that it is an infinite resource.

The argument is not about whether oil is or is not an "infinite" resource. Of course it isn't. It's about whether "peak oil" has been reached or is likely be in the near future. To argue that peak oil has not yet been reached or won't be for many years is not to argue that oil is an infinite resource. You yourself recognise this when you write later:

ralfy wrote:

we need to differentiate between peak oil not taking place and peak oil not taking place during a certain period. The first implies that oil is an infinite resource, and that's not the case given the standpoint of a human race that cannot wait for millions of years before more supplies are made available.The second does not in any way confirm the first. We can use unconventional oil in place of crude oil, nuclear power, etc., but the physical limitations remain, and not just for materials needed to obtain, store, and use energy but even for other matters, such as phosphorus needed for agriculture, fossil fuels needed for petrochemicals and shipping transport, etc.

Personally, I think you are exaggerating here, just as the Club of Rome did in the 1970s.Thanks for indicating what you think must be done about it, as here:.

ralfy wrote:

As I explained earlier, there is no solution to peak oil, which is a predicament. The best that can be done is to adjust to this predicament by lowering oil demand while maximizing oil and gas production, and moving to renewable energy.

ralfy wrote:

That adjustment will basically take the form of decreasing resource consumption and energy.

As I said, there is no chance of these adjustments taking place under capitalism, at least not in a rational and timely way. The only framework within which this could take place is world socialism. as explained in this article:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1980s/1987/no-996-august-1987/one-green-world

[ralfy]

ALB wrote:

The chances of "using fewer resources and localize" happening within capitalism are nil. The only framework within which this could be implemented would be a society where the Earth's natural and industrial resources had become the common heritage of all. Because only on that basis would humans be in a position to choose what to do without being subject to the economic laws and profit considerations that capitalism imposes.

Definitely! But if peak oil isn't true, then is there still a need to implement this framework?And if this framework has to be implemented for other reasons, such as environmental concerns and social justice, then doesn't that make the claim that peak oil not being true irrelevant?That brings us back to the original point of this thread: whatever happened to peak oil? My answer is that it never went away.

Quote:

Such a society would not only be free to eliminate the huge waste of resources under capitalism but also to develop other, at present unprofitable, sources of energy. We could have a world in which everybody's needs could be met without having to wear hair shirts or abandon entirely living in towns and cities or the worldwide productive network that has developed.

Some capitalists have the same argument; hence, references to more government intervention, steady state economics, and so forth. In fact, the IEA report describes how this process should come about.The important thing to consider, at least for this thread, is that there will be a need to eliminate waste and develop other sources of energy given peak oil.

[Author]

Posts