So what is peak oil like to the "outsider"?

[Pegasus]

Out of sheer luck and curiosity I searched one of my favorite nerd sites to see if "peak oil" had made an appearance.  I was curious to see their take on it.  What a coincidence, built around the recent whistleblower claims at the IEA there was a massive thread over at Slashdot.org about it just a few days ago.

I read as far as I could stand into the discussion, it was very interesting to see the argument evolve.  From the very basics the ideas start to flow, people go back and forth making good points, only to be trumped by an even more clever and deep idea that destroys earlier +5 comments that at the time seemed dead on.  You can tell who knows their stuff and who is "smart and educated but just doesn't know the incredible scope and depth of the peak oil problem". 

The Slashdot community is one of the brightest and most educated on the internet, to see them work over peak oil's implications that are several tiers below what we have worked through made me feel a little bit smart, usually I feel stupid engaging in that community   To feel like a master of a subject watching "noobs" see the light and start the gears grinding is pretty interesting, at least I thought so.


Something I learned about all this that is a bit troubling, I didn't finish the entire thread but from what I saw... I don't think the vast majority of those involved realized just how disturbing and possibly near the consequences of this could be.  The most prevailing idea was that the price of oil would go up and this would "naturally" cause the U.S. to shift to alternative methods and that it would be a smooth transition.  That is the kicker, they didn't make it to the point that they understood THAT AIN'T GONNA WORK!!! THE PROBLEM IS TOO BIG, THE SOLUTIONS JUST AREN'T THERE!!!.  They never solved the equation realizing we are mathematically fucked!

[EWHM]

Out of sheer luck and curiosity I searched one of my favorite nerd sites to see if "peak oil" had made an appearance.  I was curious to see their take on it.  What a coincidence, built around the recent whistleblower claims at the IEA there was a massive thread over at Slashdot.org about it just a few days ago.

I read as far as I could stand into the discussion, it was very interesting to see the argument evolve.  From the very basics the ideas start to flow, people go back and forth making good points, only to be trumped by an even more clever and deep idea that destroys earlier +5 comments that at the time seemed dead on.  You can tell who knows their stuff and who is "smart and educated but just doesn't know the incredible scope and depth of the peak oil problem". 

The Slashdot community is one of the brightest and most educated on the internet, to see them work over peak oil's implications that are several tiers below what we have worked through made me feel a little bit smart, usually I feel stupid engaging in that community   To feel like a master of a subject watching "noobs" see the light and start the gears grinding is pretty interesting, at least I thought so.


Something I learned about all this that is a bit troubling, I didn't finish the entire thread but from what I saw... I don't think the vast majority of those involved realized just how disturbing and possibly near the consequences of this could be.  The most prevailing idea was that the price of oil would go up and this would "naturally" cause the U.S. to shift to alternative methods and that it would be a smooth transition.  That is the kicker, they didn't make it to the point that they understood THAT AIN'T GONNA WORK!!! THE PROBLEM IS TOO BIG, THE SOLUTIONS JUST AREN'T THERE!!!.  They never solved the equation realizing we are mathematically fucked!

I agree that we're screwed, as you say, but I don't think we're mathematically so.  There are two possibilities to get the US or your industrialized nation out of this without a massive dieoff.  Neither are likely, but both are at least logically possible:
1)  Undertake a massive restructuring of the way we collect taxes to artificially make oil/fossil energy much more expensive, to trigger the social, infrastructure, and economic changes earlier than geology WILL trigger them for us, at such time as we still have a prayer of surviving them as a non-failed state.  Not happening without a massive outbreak of sanity among both the electorate AND the elites.
2)  Some transcendent genius of the scale of Newton, Kepler, or Einstein pulls a massive rabbit out of their hat giving us a technological fix that buys us enough time to find the next bottleneck (some sort of energy storage breakthrough perhaps, or an energy source like practical fusion.  I don't think this is likely either, but I concede it is at least possible, particularly if Nature went out of her way to provide some useful loophole that engineers can wrestle a large amount of population carrying capacity out of.

As I understand it, the US peaked internally on oil production in the early 70s at somewhere a bit shy of 10 M barrels/day, and is presently a bit shy of 5 M barrels/day.  That's about a 40 year time to go from peak to half of peak.  I think it's a really optimistic projection to presume that the world will have 42-45 million barrels/day of production available come 2050 (which would assume a similar depletion rate, and neglecting 'export land' and declining EROEI on said oil).  Anyone have any insight as to what level of production the following things happen?
1)  Countries decide oil is too precious to allow it to be freely traded internationally (like many countries right now ban food exports)
2)  Modern industrialized agriculture can not longer support the population
3)  Non-stupid (i.e., profitable from an energy invested to energy returned) resource wars break out in earnest.

[Pegasus]

I agree, only one problem, you're making sense  .

I think the biggest obstacle is this... human nature, we won't change until we have to, by that time (now), its already too late.  This is what the Hirsch report spoke of.

If our leaders were truly for the people, by the people, of the people, I think we could knock this peak oil thing out with only minimal hell.  Problem is the interest is not in that, its in making money for myself and anyone else can kiss my ass.

Great points though, if we find our way out of this it will be from what you said.

[EWHM]

I agree, only one problem, you're making sense  .

I think the biggest obstacle is this... human nature, we won't change until we have to, by that time (now), its already too late.  This is what the Hirsch report spoke of.

If our leaders were truly for the people, by the people, of the people, I think we could knock this peak oil thing out with only minimal hell.  Problem is the interest is not in that, its in making money for myself and anyone else can kiss my ass.

Great points though, if we find our way out of this it will be from what you said.

Unless we find a humongous rabbit in a hat somewhere, I don't think the long run (2050-2100) population carrying capacity of the world in the deep post peak period is much more than a billion or so---so I think a pretty serious amount of hell is in the cards.  That said, I think that a nation that had a mass outbreak of sanity and the ability and will to build their own lifeboat could capture a 'disproportionate' share of that carrying capacity relative to its present population and get the only minimal hell for its own citizenry.
Canada springs to mind---small population, large resource base including oil, and as I understand it, not a horrible balance sheet right now.  I seriously doubt they'll have the necessary outbreak of sanity, but their position isn't bad, and geography gives them protection from everything but the US.  Their biggest worry would be that the US might decide that it wants to overrun the entire continent in an attempt to capture its carrying capacity (the New World as a whole might have 250-350M of that total billion or so of long term carrying capacity, and if a nation's present population is greater than that, it would be strongly tempted to take some from its neighbors, bronze age style).
On the flip side, the US will likely, if it doesn't collapse early on, be strongly motivated to gain oil by non-economic means---i.e., conquest and/or tribute.  That makes it very dangerous to Mexico and the other oil-rich countries in South America.  Such conquests are likely to be exceptionally bloody, as what good does it do to capture carrying capacity if you also get more population than it can support along with the bargain?  Canada on the other hand, could probably become a nuclear power any time it wanted to--like Japan and many other countries.

[TheDignityofStruggle]

I think there is a flaw in look at Peak from the angle that however much oil we had X amount of years pre peak, we will also have X amount of years after peak.  The amount of oil we had in 1980 was enough then, but won't be enough in 2030. The upside of a bell curve is all fun in games, as we add all manor of frivolous luxuries to our lives.  The downside is all about unrequited needs.  The whole system is interconnected, and by pulling out one facet here, or one facet there, the whole structure can come crashing down.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the way up is comfortable.  More is always great.  More people means more babies, more families, more birthday parties, and all manor of smiles and rainbows shooting out our asses.  The way down is struggle, it's fighting tooth and nail to get get a chair before the music stops.  I'd say it will be "bumpy," but I think a more accurate description is basically a roller coaster running out of track.

PO outsiders will never fathom this.  Too many PO insiders refuse to even believe it.

[PeakARoo]

Not so long ago, we had a massive die-off of Kangaroos.

The population had thrived because of the over abundance of feed created by the transformation of bush into paddocks.
Then the worst drought in Australia's history kicked in. In a year or so, their food supply basically disappeared.
It was quite disturbing to see roos scattered around dried up waterholes with their ribs poking out, dying a slow and painfull death.
Even though I have culled these animals before, I could not help but feel sorry for them.

Could there be some parallels in their plight and ours?

[hillwalker]

The Slashdot community is one of the brightest and most educated on the internet,

Okay, I'll go with the Slashdot community is generally pretty bright, and used to critical thinking, and there are a few
shining stars of brilliance out there. However, a fair amount of the slashdot community is cocky, pedantic,
full of itself and generally a bunch of petulant children.

Way back when, Kunstler wrote about presenting peak oil or doomerism, or whatever it is that he does
to folks at Google. and basically writing them off as cocky, pedantic, petulant children who have a complete
and blind faith in technology. I put slashdot in that corner.

[ballad]

I work in Infosec, so Slashdot is pretty representative of my social grouping, and I can pretty much say with confidence that i have not met a person who was PO aware or thought
it meant anything at all.

And it makes sense.

We burn through so much energy with absolutely no disregard for it.

Most of my colleagues are gadget mad. Another example, once a year the entire company is flown over to the US. I fly in on Friday, and fly back on Sunday.
Saturday is our Boss's speech.

We come from all over the world for that.

Techno-salvation believers.

I used to be one though too, Kurzweil and the whole shebang.

[chenopodium]

Just weeks before I got PO aware, I also read the Kurzweil book, and was a total gadget addict, and a Trekky :-).
I remember a friend of mine read the book "Collapse" and I thought he was so weird, aren't we approaching the singuliarty etc :-).

Initially, my husband told me about PO and was so scared, and I just laughted and stamped him as a doomer and thought that technology will save us...

Then, a few weeks later, I finally COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD PO, and my life turned 180 degrees!
(We did the whole thing: change jobs, relocate, and are building a solar passive house  etc etc :-).

Now I laugh at people who read Kurzweil and think technology will save us :-).

It's amazing how blind I was.. and so many still are...

Cheno

[Ovis Suburbanus]

Just weeks before I got PO aware, I also read the Kurzweil book, and was a total gadget addict, and a Trekky :-).
I remember a friend of mine read the book "Collapse" and I thought he was so weird, aren't we approaching the singuliarty etc :-).

Initially, my husband told me about PO and was so scared, and I just laughted and stamped him as a doomer and thought that technology will save us...

Then, a few weeks later, I finally COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD PO, and my life turned 180 degrees!
(We did the whole thing: change jobs, relocate, and are building a solar passive house  etc etc :-).

Now I laugh at people who read Kurzweil and think technology will save us :-).

It's amazing how blind I was.. and so many still are...

Cheno

Hi Cheno. Could you please elaborate on your rather sudden transformation? How did you go from your friend being "weird" to you husband telling you about PO and stamping him a doomer to completely understanding our predicament?

[Xenopus]

It's amazing how blind I was.. and so many still are...

Cheno

Me too, and I have known about PO since the 1960s. But what it MEANT struck me like a sledge hammer last year. Same deal: panic, makeover, relocation, pay all debt, get chickens, etc.! 

[vision-master]

Peak Oil to the outside is non-existent.

[metaforge]

Yes the problem with thinking production will be symmetric across the peak is that population & demand now ain't what it was on the other side, plus the fruit was still low hanging on the upswing.  The US peak may have been more symmetric because as the easy stuff declined, the US just imported more easy stuff from elsewhere.  Well, on the world downswing, there won't be any elsewhere to get more easy stuff from.

As for the slashdot people, yes, smugness is certainly an issue.  However, just as the normal McMansion consumers in America don't want to let go of their Hummers, plasma TVs, and vacations, the slashdot crowd doesn't want to let go of their Linux server farms, iPhones, XBoxes, etc.  They are smart & well paid, so they have a lot to lose.  Lets face it, if we revert to an agrarian lifestyle, the average Unix hacker doesn't really have a lot to contribute.

[hillwalker]

Yes the problem with thinking production will be symmetric across the peak is that population & demand now ain't what it was on the other side, plus the fruit was still low hanging on the upswing.  The US peak may have been more symmetric because as the easy stuff declined, the US just imported more easy stuff from elsewhere.  Well, on the world downswing, there won't be any elsewhere to get more easy stuff from.

As for the slashdot people, yes, smugness is certainly an issue.  However, just as the normal McMansion consumers in America don't want to let go of their Hummers, plasma TVs, and vacations, the slashdot crowd doesn't want to let go of their Linux server farms, iPhones, XBoxes, etc.  They are smart & well paid, so they have a lot to lose.  Lets face it, if we revert to an agrarian lifestyle, the average Unix hacker doesn't really have a lot to contribute.

But the 'true' unix hacker, is, well, a hacker.
Hackers, as in true hackers, are danged handy things to have around.
They fix things, and come up with hacks to keep stuff from breaking again, and so on and so on.
But I get your point, they are wholly vested in the coming of the singularity, and their devotion to the server cluster farm,
rather than the mixed livestock/vegetable farm.
Some of them though are already figuring out small clusters of sheevaplugs. They know what's coming. Just
as long as they can keep some packets flowing, they'll be happy, and still know best how to get a really good
edge on that hoe.

[TheDignityofStruggle]

Yes the problem with thinking production will be symmetric across the peak is that population & demand now ain't what it was on the other side, plus the fruit was still low hanging on the upswing.  The US peak may have been more symmetric because as the easy stuff declined, the US just imported more easy stuff from elsewhere.  Well, on the world downswing, there won't be any elsewhere to get more easy stuff from.

Yeah, I didn't mean to be Captain Obvious with my post.  I was sleepy when I wrote it, and don't think I captured my thought terribly well.  I guess what I was saying is that the upside of a bell curve that represents a growing or expanding economy is, well, growth.  It's building.  It's constructive.  Construction represents wealth, jobs, greater access to resources, all things that tend people towards happiness - or at least security. 

So the down side must represent the opposite.  It is destruction.  It is loss, sacrifice, doing without.  All things that tend people towards misery, hopelessness, and likely irrational behavior.  The world can't slowly step down a stair case of decreasing access to energy. 

All that said, construction is an orderly process.  Destruction will be disorderly.  There will be no way to control it.