can you say peak oil? (free market, credit, debt, buying)

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak

The LAST person I'd believe is the head of an energy organization. Not that they're ignorant to energy (quite the contrary). Just that they lie as frequently about reserves and upcoming conditions as defense attorneys.

He was the former head, him lying benefits him in no way.

[bigdummy]

I think the good news is that we haven't reached peak oil, there is still a ton of the stuff down there.

The bad news, is that we have reached the peak of easily accessible and cheap oil.

It's no longer easily accessible here at home, due to a lack of drilling and refining facilities, and politics holding us back from being able to get at the stuff.

And it's no longer easily accessible or cheap from the middle east, due to foreign policy issues and the fact that the value of the dollar is at an all time low, and will most likely continue to drop for the foreseeable future.

As usual, the technology to fix the situation is available...but as long as Washington is in bed with big oil, nothing's going to change.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

He was the former head, him lying benefits him in no way.

Agreed and even the head of Shell is saying the same. Basic message is either plan something different quickly or be prepared to fight and die in the dark and cold.

Another one of those life choice things . . . yunno, "I put before you life or death, blessings or curses . . . "

Do not mean to wax religious on this, but from the responses, I think you can follow that you are dealing in belief systems.

As far as folks lying about oil reserves, it is generally viewed the Saudi's may be not fully telling the truth. If they clearly stated how much they (do not) actually have left, they would lose power and influence.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by bigdummy

I think the good news is that we haven't reached peak oil, there is still a ton of the stuff down there.

The bad news, is that we have reached the peak of easily accessible and cheap oil.

It's no longer easily accessible here at home, due to a lack of drilling and refining facilities, and politics holding us back from being able to get at the stuff.

And it's no longer easily accessible or cheap from the middle east, due to foreign policy issues and the fact that the value of the dollar is at an all time low, and will most likely continue to drop for the foreseeable future.

As usual, the technology to fix the situation is available...but as long as Washington is in bed with big oil, nothing's going to change.

hmmm, well I would not call you a bigdummy -- actually you summarized the overall Peak Oil theory pretty well.

You are correct, the “Peak” is not about the end of oil – as far as prices go, it is just the end of “cheap oil.” I tend to look at it as foreshadowing of the close of the era.

In general -- for resources that can be consumed, but do not replace themselves – oil for example – they follow a “bell curve” sort of model. Once discovered, more and more is extracted until some maximum production is reached and then it begins to play out and taper down. Not that complex of concept. Happens in all oil wells, most gold or copper mines, too.

The US reached its Peak Oil production at about 1970. Production has been in decline every since. (btw, ANWR does not have enough in to make any difference for the folks who want to stay addicted to oil). When you combine all the local Peaks around the world, it appears that max production of oil for the world overall was about 2005. If the bell curve model fits as it so often does, it is all down hill from here, forward.

But there is still a LOT left in the ground. If we have burned about 1 trillion barrels from the start of the era, a little over 100 years ago . . . there should be about 1 trillion left in the ground. Problem is that we will be broke and in the dark if we do not choose a better path than oil going forward.

And I tend to agree there are good non-oil technology replacements, and sadly Washington is choosing war for oil instead of them.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by bigdummy

I think the good news is that we haven't reached peak oil, there is still a ton of the stuff down there.

The bad news, is that we have reached the peak of easily accessible and cheap oil.

It's no longer easily accessible here at home, due to a lack of drilling and refining facilities, and politics holding us back from being able to get at the stuff.

And it's no longer easily accessible or cheap from the middle east, due to foreign policy issues and the fact that the value of the dollar is at an all time low, and will most likely continue to drop for the foreseeable future.

As usual, the technology to fix the situation is available...but as long as Washington is in bed with big oil, nothing's going to change.

That part in bold sir, is the definition of peak oil

link

Originally Posted by Philip T

Agreed and even the head of Shell is saying the same. Basic message is either plan something different quickly or be prepared to fight and die in the dark and cold.

Another one of those life choice things . . . yunno, "I put before you life or death, blessings or curses . . . "

Do not mean to wax religious on this, but from the responses, I think you can follow that you are dealing in belief systems.

As far as folks lying about oil reserves, it is generally viewed the Saudi's may be not fully telling the truth. If they clearly stated how much they (do not) actually have left, they would lose power and influence.

EXACTLY and belief and facts do not go together. From all the research I am doing, I think they are saying anywhere from 2015 to 2030 is when you are going to see things get REAL, very quickly. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on what side of the fence you are on, some of us will be prepared and as you see from this thread, some will not. I just hope the nay sayers aren't crying, complaining and blaming who ever is in office because they weren't prudent enough to do research and make the proper adjustments.

It will probably be just like this housing boom. You had people from as far back as 2003 telling people what was happening and you had the know it alls with the "you don't know what you are talking about. You're wrong because my gut tells me so" and now look at them. People want to cry, complain and point fingers.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by Philip T

hmmm, well I would not call you a bigdummy -- actually you summarized the overall Peak Oil theory pretty well.

You are correct, the “Peak” is not about the end of oil – as far as prices go, it is just the end of “cheap oil.” I tend to look at it as foreshadowing of the close of the era.

In general -- for resources that can be consumed, but do not replace themselves – oil for example – they follow a “bell curve” sort of model. Once discovered, more and more is extracted until some maximum production is reached and then it begins to play out and taper down. Not that complex of concept. Happens in all oil wells, most gold or copper mines, too.

The US reached its Peak Oil production at about 1970. Production has been in decline every since. (btw, ANWR does not have enough in to make any difference for the folks who want to stay addicted to oil). When you combine all the local Peaks around the world, it appears that max production of oil for the world overall was about 2005. If the bell curve model fits as it so often does, it is all down hill from here, forward.

But there is still a LOT left in the ground. If we have burned about 1 trillion barrels from the start of the era, a little over 100 years ago . . . there should be about 1 trillion left in the ground. Problem is that we will be broke and in the dark if we do not choose a better path than oil going forward.

And I tend to agree there are good non-oil technology replacements, and sadly Washington is choosing war for oil instead of them.

I think a lot of states and cities are picking up the slack for washington. Check out NYC's PlanNYC and where they plan to be by 2030, same with los angeles and Chicago, they all have these plans and all say they need to be at point x by 2030 (you will notice that is the year that keeps coming up in all these plans). Surprisingly where I live they are rolling out a mass transit system which should be 50% in use by 2011. Also Obama keeps talking about "infrastructure and renewable energy". I guarantee you, his formula ends up being some FDR sort of deal but instead of high ways it will be mass transit in metro areas and bullet trains between metro areas and cross country. I also think they are going to push high capacity broadband and also give incentives to companies for allowing telecommuting. I could be wrong, but all the hints, innuendos dropped by govt and a lot of the research I have done points to this. This next few decades will mark a huge transition for this country. I just think the govt needs to do a better job of educating people on the facts. But I guess no one wants to be the person who has to tell John Q public (You mcmansion, deep in suburban sprawl living, gas guzzling lifestyle is over)

[compelled to reply]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

I also think they are going to push high capacity broadband and also give incentives to companies for allowing telecommuting. I could be wrong, but all the hints, innuendos dropped by govt and a lot of the research I have done points to this. This next few decades will mark a huge transition for this country. I just think the govt needs to do a better job of educating people on the facts. But I guess no one wants to be the person who has to tell John Q public (You mcmansion, deep in suburban sprawl living, gas guzzling lifestyle is over)

Every day your posts turn me more and more into a born again liberal.

[Wild Style]

Originally Posted by compelled to reply

Every day your posts turn me more and more into a born again liberal.

I am not political so what does liberal mean......goes to look it up

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.[3]

IF this is what a liberal is, then I am not that. I don't believe in free speech, I don't believe in "freedom of thought" as it is here in the west. I don't believe in limiting govt.

Here is my thoughts on mass transit and peak oil. Gas gets more expensive, food gets more expensive as well as other goods that most be carried to its destination via truck. That means that john q public no longer has disposable income or not as much as they used to. This means the economy will slow or stagnate. That also means people are less willing to take jobs to far away from home. I should say that, what was once "not that far" becomes far because of expense of gas, so the very definition of that term changes. This all affects the over all economy and our ability as a country to either do well or just get by. I think its because of my degree in econ but I see the bigger picture and how things are all inter related. That is something the average person who puts labels on themselves (republic, democrats, liberal, socialist) doesn't get. Make policy that benefits society not just a few.

As for dealing with peak oil, they will come out with new cars with alternative fuels, sure but not many will be able to afford that, thats just a fact. I assure you, even in our home region (south Florida). There will come a day when more people are walking and taking mass transit than actually own cars. It is, what it is. I remember reading a story about a guy in Nashville, he lost his job (the company folded). He now had to look for a new job BUT gas is higher now and he can't afford to look for a job downtown so he said he has to find a job that is close to where he lives way out in suburban sprawl. Again, this is all because of VERY bad policy and urban planning. Had the powers that be been more informed early on, they would have prevented sprawl. They would have kept communities with in the urban core. Kept farm land closer to urban cores etc. I mean not only gas is at stake here. Look at Atlanta, ALL that sprawl and now they have water shortages. Living all sprawled out like we do now is just not practical or sustainable. It spreads resources WAY to thin. That has noting to do with political leaning and has everything to do with sustainability and making sure our country is prosperous for generations to come.

Instead of responsibility and securing our countries future, the powers that be have allowed money to dictate policy. Unfortunately, the thing about that is, money has a way of making ones vision extremely short sited.

[compelled to reply]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

IF this is what a liberal is, then I am not that.

That is more classical liberalism which is closer to a Libertarian philosophy, which is more like where I am at. I would define your train of thought as being closer to a US defined democratic party type of "liberal".

Although I am curious, where did you get your degree from? I know you did study economics but it can be interpreted so many ways. I have done research about peak oil for a couple of years now and although I am typically more of a Libertarian thinker, I am starting to wonder if that is really an economically sustainable stance when our oil usage keeps on rising and production is starting to decline. Our whole damn economy is based on cheap oil and although I am more of an advocate of personal responsibility, I'm starting to think we need to save ourselves from our own selves. Your example in Nashville shows irresponsible use of our freedoms and without a cheap source of fuel to keep this crap going, I guess we are bound to collapse unless we unite...

It does kind of have to do with politics when you look at it that way, because my current political stance is mostly infeasible in a world where oil that is going to need to make some serious changes if we want to have any sort of quality of life. We can't rely on ourselves to change...

That was completely off the topic of this forum so I am just going to say that in addition, I think "business" as we know it (driving to work, sitting in traffic for an hour dodging morons on the road, parking out car in some paved lot with other cars) obviously is going to change. Telecommuting is THE WAY TO GO.

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by Wild Style

Living all sprawled out like we do now is just not practical or sustainable. It spreads resources WAY to thin. That has noting to do with political leaning and has everything to do with sustainability and making sure our country is prosperous for generations to come.

It'll take a few years for the boomers to need constant medical care, but they'll eventually be looking for downsized houses close to hospitals. I'm sure some clinics will open up in the suburbs, but almost all of them will need to be close to the major centers at some point.