View Full Version : Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which also warns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown.
The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.
We I will be an old fart by then better stock up on guns a dark time is coming. :o
By the way have they taken in to account there be more people on the planet as the years go by resulting in greater consumption.
You have posted this three times!!
SUBMAN1
10-23-07, 01:33 PM
Yep. Better find a way to protect your food since I would think that you may need to do that in the future.
I wonder how a country like America will be affected? Will we just go all electric? We have enough coal in this country to last many of my lifetimes. I don't expect the same impact here as I would in a 3rd world country. Just my thoughts on it.
-S
SUBMAN1
10-23-07, 02:05 PM
Well IMHO America would be affected as bad if not worse than anywhere else.
Is there any other country in the world so dependant on the car?
For instance.....
How far to the nearest food store if you live in an american city? And by what means of transport would that food have got there?
Then theres the airplane.
No other country is so dependant on air travel/transportation. (Understandable given the size of the place)
I don't think the solar/electric/wind or wave powered aircraft is anywhere near on the horizon.
Lets face it, if/when the oil runs out we are all done for.I don't agree with that assesment. A. We will still be buying much of that oil in 2030 at the expense of other countries not getting as much, and B. we have the ability to innovate and adapt where a 3rd world country lacks the technical talent to do so - http://www.evworld.com/evguide.cfm?evtype=production
Cali has 5,000 of them on the road.
And if Iceland can get Hydrogen going for it's populace, I don't see why we can't given 30 years time! Isn't that enough time to adapt?
Never underestimate the capitalists societies ability to adapt to make money. I don't think we will have that many problems, assuming nuclear war does not hit us first with Iran and it's ambitions.
-S
Hakahura
10-23-07, 02:38 PM
I don't particularly want to start a flame war or bash America.....
Well IMHO America would be affected as bad if not worse than anywhere else.
Is there any other country in the world so dependant on the car?
For instance.....
How far to the nearest food store if you live in an american city? And by what means of transport would that food have got there?
Then theres the airplane.
No other country is so dependant on air travel/transportation. (Understandable given the size of the place)
I don't think the solar/electric/wind or wave powered aircraft is anywhere near on the horizon.
Lets face it, if/when the oil runs out we are all done for.I don't agree with that assesment. A. We will still be buying much of that oil in 2030 at the expense of other countries not getting as much, and B. we have the ability to innovate and adapt where a 3rd world country lacks the technical talent to do so - http://www.evworld.com/evguide.cfm?evtype=production
Cali has 5,000 of them on the road.
And if Iceland can get Hydrogen going for it's populace, I don't see why we can't given 30 years time! Isn't that enough time to adapt?
Never underestimate the capitalists societies ability to adapt to make money. I don't think we will have that many problems, assuming nuclear war does not hit us first with Iran and it's ambitions.
-S
We will still be buying much of that oil in 2030 at the expense of other countries not getting as much
But when you express opinions like that you can't expect other nations to hold yours with much regard.
Quotes like that could be construded by some more extreme people around the world, as reason to attack America before it uses its financial clout to take their oil.
Less extreme people might think "with allies like this who needs......"
But maybe I'm wrong and that was a typo
SUBMAN1
10-23-07, 03:00 PM
I don't particularly want to start a flame war or bash America.....
We will still be buying much of that oil in 2030 at the expense of other countries not getting as much
But when you express opinions like that you can't expect other nations to hold yours with much regard.
Quotes like that could be construded by some more extreme people around the world, as reason to attack America before it uses its financial clout to take their oil.
Less extreme people might think "with allies like this who needs......"
But maybe I'm wrong and that was a typo
It's a fact. It is not like we will force it. It is a financial thing. And no, it is not a typo. The terrorists won't attack over that idea as well because they are the ones getting the $$$! :D They already have the oil too, so to them, it is non-issue. They will continue to fight for their whacked ideals which has little to do with oil. Those ideals is to create a Islamic world, which will never happen.
Sounds to me like this idea ticks you off. It shouldn't. I am simply stating an economic reality or idea. Doesn't matter if I live in Africa and state it, it is what it is.
-S
Skybird
10-23-07, 03:58 PM
Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil (http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html), worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production (http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/21/commentary/column_hays/hays/) of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode. (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1888)
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/)
The resulting graph is extremely striking, I think. The four different sources all estimate Saudi production slightly differently - they fluctuate in different ways month to month, and disagree over the absolute level (that last may be differences in exactly what is defined as oil). However, the regressions make clear that all four sources are in strong agreement about the nature of the decline. The slopes of the lines are very similar. The implied decline rate through the year is 8% ± 0.1%. (Note that the year on year decline from 2005 to 2006 will only be about half that, as the decline only began at the beginning of 2006). As far as I know, there are no known accidents or problems that would explain any restrictions on oil supply, and the Saudis themselves have maintained publicly that their production is unproblematic and they intend to increase it. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
and many others
I read some of those articles Skybird posted - the situation for the world's energy supply appears more serious than I ever realized (assuming the articles are correct, which I do assume).:o I am surprised more people are worried about this, although I guess I wouldn't know what to do or say myself.:-? I do all the usual things to conserve energy though (i.e. don't leave the engine running, turn off lights when I'm not using them, etc.).
bradclark1
10-24-07, 08:49 PM
Exxon Mobil can hire Blackwater to fight their wars.
You better all enjoy what's left of the good times as we enter a new dark age.
Skybird
10-25-07, 12:59 PM
But times of darkness have the charm of making people pray. :smug:
DeepIron
10-25-07, 01:05 PM
You better all enjoy what's left of the good times as we enter a new dark age.
But I would expect things to get even 'darker' still... Depends on faith/belief I guess...:smug:
But times of darkness have the charm of making people pray.
Amen...:up:
Food prices will rocket along with your house hold bills, air travel will almost end along with road transport. This list will go on and on, people you better make the most of your life style now as one day the curtain will fall.
DeepIron
10-25-07, 01:22 PM
I really wonder if people truly understand how dependent the Human Race is on petroleum? Consider plastics... petroleum-based products... lubricants and a number of other polymer products are derived from crude oil...
Driving a semi, I have high hopes for biodiesel, but there's a long way to go to meet the sheer quantity demands of the trucking industry, let alone any other diesel-fueled transports...
Well most of us here are as for the rest of the world..................
They say the sh*t will hit the fan around 2030 but are they taking in to account there figures will have changed in five years? Look at China and India who want there slice of cake and telling everyone else you had your slice now it's our time.
DeepIron
10-25-07, 01:37 PM
Look at China and India who want there slice of cake and telling everyone else you had your slice now it's our time.
It is said that last century was the "American" century and this one belongs to the Chinese...
What drives me nutz, is that instead of a war in the Middle East, which I'm sure has at least *something* to do with oil, we could be spending the $$$ to further alternative energy and re-usable resources. Not furthering a futile dependancy on a finite resource like oil... :damn:
Think about the research that the $$$ spent fighting in Iraq the last 4 years could have funded... :damn:
Meanwhile, the Japanese are moving steadily ahead with alternative technologies while the Big 3 get their collective SUV a**es kicked...
Skybird
10-25-07, 02:20 PM
I really wonder if people truly understand how dependent the Human Race is on petroleum? Consider plastics... petroleum-based products... lubricants and a number of other polymer products are derived from crude oil...
Compared to the ammount of oil that gets burned for energy production and for keeping vehicles on the gorund, in the air and on the oceasn running, the ammount of oil used for the kind of productions you mentioned is harmlessly small. I have no numbers and I do not care to search for it now, but I remember to have read like this repeatedly. If somebody says it would be not more than 5%, I would believe it, unprepared as I am right now.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
The list of yours is not complete, of course. Add vital things like fertilizers, pharmacies, insecticides to it, and you are in the realm of not only items of comfort, but essential items of survival for millions and hundreds of millions of people. the list of horror getting opened without oil starts with mass starvations, leads over epidemics caused by insects, and ends at contient-wide wars with all the grim terror they bring. and that's just what I can come up with when giving it only a shallow thought.
DeepIron
10-25-07, 02:33 PM
the ammount of oil used for the kind of productions you mentioned is harmlessly small...In a quantitative sense, yes. However, that small amount certainly plays a vital role. for instance, I can't imagine fresh meat at the supermarket being wrapped in anything else but plastics...
The list of yours is not complete, of course. Add vital things like fertilizers, pharmacies, insecticides to it, and you are in the realm of not only items of comfort, but essential items of survival for millions and hundreds of millions of people. the list of horror getting opened without oil starts with mass starvations, leads over epidemics caused by insects, and ends at contient-wide wars with all the grim terror they bring. and that's just what I can come up with when giving it only a shallow thought.
Precisely. Petroleum is so integrated into our daily lives, that the loss of oil resources will most certainly have a much more devastating and far reaching effect than currently thought, IMO.
If we don't nuke ourselves into non-existence, we'll have to contend with the depletion of oil and natural gas reserves...
Skybird
10-25-07, 03:39 PM
what I meant is this: while oil as a ressource for energy production will become more unaffordable for many, the unisuitrial supply to maintain the priduction of the goods you and me mentioned is so small that there is little reason to worry about that: there will be enough oil for these purposes for long time to come. Only the far bigger quantities needed for energy will become rare - in the understanding of extremely pricey. when I said one year ago I expect the price for one arel of oil going beyond 100 dollar soon, people here laughed about me. Now it is broadcasted on every TV channel, an dporbbaly nobody laughs anymore. So here is my next news: it will not stop at 100 dollars. In 2030 I could imagine you need to multiply that by a number between 2 and 5, assuming there are not significant events in current global economy trends that will completely revamp the scenario.
What that means for the average household, you can imagine.
there will be oil. Bot less and lesser nations as well as private people will be able to afford it. And I do not bet my money on the US being one belonging to those with the longest breath. just look at the monumental deficits, debts - and the immense dollar reserves of China. It's more reasonable to assume that America needs to fear a nightmare. Economically duelling it out over oil with China will see the US as the looser, I'm sure. And a military victory in case of a war confrontation, also is no longer a given, for various reasons.
Is there any danger (in such a future scenario as the one currently being discussed) that the United States would attack and take over Canada in order to seize our oil (and maybe our fresh water) supplies? After doing some light research, it seems that Canada is currently the only nation with any positive forecast in regards to increased oil production and the discovery of more reserves (mostly in Alberta, but some in the NWT and off the east coast of Newfoundland as well) Plus, it would be fairly easy to crush militarily, especially by the US.:oops: I'm not trying to provoke anti-American sentiment here or anything (I am certainly not anti-American at all), but in a desperate world where oil prices are skyrocketing and supply is dwindling, visions of a scenario loosley similar to that in Clive Cussler's idiotic novel Night Probe are coming to mind.:dead:
DeepIron
10-25-07, 04:18 PM
Is there any danger (in such a future scenario as the one currently being discussed) that the United States would attack and take over Canada in order to seize our oil (and maybe our fresh water) supplies? Yes. As soon we complete our assimilation of Mexico for it's abundant supply of burritos... We're coming after you, eh? ;)
waste gate
10-25-07, 04:24 PM
Is there any danger (in such a future scenario as the one currently being discussed) that the United States would attack and take over Canada in order to seize our oil (and maybe our fresh water) supplies? Yes. As soon we complete our assimilation of Mexico... We're coming after you, eh? ;)
Why stop in North America. Many European countries thrive under the blanket of our protection. NATO is little more than a US fifthdom. :smug:
DeepIron
10-25-07, 04:27 PM
Why stop in North America. Many European countries thrive under the blanket of our protection. NATO is little more than a US fifthdom.
Yeah just wait until there's a global shortage of sheep! Ewe won't be safe...:rotfl:
WG, did you mean fifedom?
waste gate
10-25-07, 04:28 PM
Why stop in North America. Many European countries thrive under the blanket of our protection. NATO is little more than a US fifthdom.
Yeah just wait until there's a global shortage of sheep! Ewe won't be safe...:rotfl:
WG, did you mean fifedom?
More spelling issues. The nuns tried. :damn:
DeepIron
10-25-07, 04:33 PM
I thought the concept of a 'fifthdom' was kinda cool... You know, like 'fifth column' strategies... The US could covertly control the world by spending billions of $$$ in the the guise of "foreign aid" to sway other national leaders secretly to our side... and then....
Oh, wait a moment... we already do that...
Sorry about that - I didn't mean to direct the thread in this direction.:oops: I'm actually not so worried about a US takeover as much as I am about the decline of our entire society and the end of life as we know it.:o That was the whole reason I responded to the thread in the first place, but I didn't and don't know what else to say on the subject - the probability of a severe oil shock feels concrete and serious, but also like an out-of-control freight train heading barreling towards a washed-out bridge with no way (for me at least) to stop it. Quite depressing to talk about, but I don't feel like letting the subject die.
DeepIron
10-25-07, 05:14 PM
When the whole "petroleum resources" thing collapses, it's probaby gonna take all of us out anyway... :yep:
What will prove to be interesting in the meanwhile, is the wrangling over the real estate under the (Soon to be former) North Polar Icecap... It's said that there is some significant oil geology up there...
waste gate
10-25-07, 05:54 PM
When the whole "petroleum resources" thing collapses, it's probaby gonna take all of us out anyway... :yep:
What will prove to be interesting in the meanwhile, is the wrangling over the real estate under the (Soon to be former) North Polar Icecap... It's said that there is some significant oil geology up there...
Interesting concept. Does it mean that at one time our poles were equatoral. Or, does it mean that fossil fuels aren't so fossil after all?
:hmm:
DeepIron
10-25-07, 06:10 PM
Interesting concept. Does it mean that at one time our poles were equatoral.
Perhaps not entirely equitorial, but I believe more temperate is the current theory. There has been quite a bit of evidence taken from the geologic record to substantiate it. I remember reading an article somewhere, I can't find it atm, where some paleogeologists took cores from the north polar region and found diatomaceous material that could only have lived in a warmer, more temperate sea...
Is there any danger (in such a future scenario as the one currently being discussed) that the United States would attack and take over Canada in order to seize our oil (and maybe our fresh water) supplies? After doing some light research, it seems that Canada is currently the only nation with any positive forecast in regards to increased oil production and the discovery of more reserves (mostly in Alberta, but some in the NWT and off the east coast of Newfoundland as well) Plus, it would be fairly easy to crush militarily, especially by the US.:oops: I'm not trying to provoke anti-American sentiment here or anything (I am certainly not anti-American at all), but in a desperate world where oil prices are skyrocketing and supply is dwindling, visions of a scenario loosley similar to that in Clive Cussler's idiotic novel Night Probe are coming to mind.:dead:
Depends. Today or in the next few years? 99.99% no. The theory that democratic countries never go to war with each other is the closest thing that we have to a scientific 'law' in international relations. It just doesn't happen. The fallout on the U.S. would be enormous; broken alliances, cancelled treaties, trade embargos, etc. Do you think that the U.S. could occupy Canada and extract Canadian natural resources easily enough to make it worth the trouble? I don't, and I don't think that American policy makers do either. With all the Canadians in the U.S. and Americans in Canada, the continent would seriously turn to hell.
If the U.S. had something else that we wanted enough I'm sure they could wiggle some kind of deal out of us. Softwood lumber got a lot of collars up north of the border and I think if it was something bigger, the government might be willing to start trading dirt cheap oil for it. But that also assumes that the U.S. has enough knowledge and willingness to use 'soft' power forwardly, which I'm afraid it doesn't, at least not to the extent of Canada.
If the U.S. turned into some king of radical authoritarian state in the next several decades, maybe something military could happen. Maybe such a situation is not discountable in the face of a looming energy crisis. It is really a big topic though, with a couple of ways to approach it.
EDIT: What you may be more likely to see in the next few years is the U.S. getting on board in laying claims to the Arctic and the rights to the huge oil reserves up there. The real battle for that will probably be fought in international courts. I am a huge proponent of developing an actual northern policy and getting the lead out in establishing an Arctic presence. I could right another big post about that, though.
EDIT: What you may be more likely to see in the next few years is the U.S. getting on board in laying claims to the Arctic and the rights to the huge oil reserves up there. The real battle for that will probably be fought in international courts. I am a huge proponent of developing an actual northern policy and getting the lead out in establishing an Arctic presence. I could right another big post about that, though. Thats exactly whats been burning me lately. The only thing that I even remotely agree with that Stephen Harper has done is promote an Arctic presense for Canada. America has been trying for some time now to dilute our claim to the so called north-west passage by sending in submarines and falunting our borders. The Russians are arguing for control of artic areas with Canada and Denmark is also talking about the extention of the shelf from Greenland. All this of course falls under the perview of the UN Law of the Sea. Whats fascinating about the US's policies right now is that Bush is actually trying to get Congress to ratify the treaty so that they can claim the area since there are believed to be oil reserves there. Says alot about how much oil they think is in there that Bush wants the US to surrender its sovereignty to an international body of nations to decide without the US's abusive input.
2 things face Canada in the arctic. The first is protecting our claim to waters within our borders; the north-west passage. As the artic ice melts these waters will be more and more useful for shipping and if enough traffic goes unchallenged by Canada through these waters for long enough it will be considered international waters and Canada will lose her claim top them. This is something that the US is hoping for obviously with their blatant infringements. The second is the claim to the extention of the shelf (or whatever its called) which extends from the surface of Canadian soil. I believe that if we can prove that it extends into the arctic we have claim to up to 200 miles from the nearest Canadian coast. The hard part is determining this, and our deadline is 2012 I think.
Anyway thats Canada's stake in the future of the Arctic. Economically it could be great for Canada since we are faced with America below us and NAFTA threatens our economic sovereignty more every year. I don't much fancy trade with China neither. The north seems like a good prospect for Canada, and it wouldn't involve us invading a semi-allied middle-eastern oil-rich soon-to-be-terrorist-haven.
Now we just need to get a bunch of planes and ice breakers up there kicking ass to keep our waters ours.
bradclark1
10-25-07, 08:29 PM
The real battle for that will probably be fought in international courts.
If it gets as bad as whats in these articles then the international courts won't have the last say. [Insert country name here] will not jeopardize their national security and survival on the say so of an international court. Who would that be? It could very well be the U.S., China, Russian federation of states, or the European Union. Not to mention that if something like that was in the foreseeable future you are also looking at a league of Arab nations for self protection or an alignment with a foreign power. The world would never have known such savagery. A little melodramatic but it gives one a picture.
Now we just need to get a bunch of planes and ice breakers up there kicking ass to keep our waters ours.
We are getting off-topic but I hoping that somebody upstairs says something soon beyond "let's secure the Arctic!" I attended the first Northern Watch conference (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hg9CcFZGGewBddQrpqyIlmnDqg1g) this week and although it was really cool (pardon the pun) to hear about all the imaging satellites, X-band radars, and magneto-inductive transmitters being developed and ruggedized for Arctic military use, it's depressing that details on any actual Arctic mandate are still missing. A question was raised about what exactly the policy plan is to secure the Arctic. A girl was on-hand from the DND ADMPOL group and her answer was limited to "umm, err, uhh, we're still working on that one." Right, so we're spending a million bucks building proof-of-concept satellites and ice-mapping forumulas with no present indication that they will have any place in the forthcoming policy. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Everyone is afraid to talk about what will happen if we have all those sensors and warships and we actually discover a Russian or even American submarine cruising through the NWP.
So the tech is there, but the ideas are not. I'm hoping to tackle with my thesis what the heck this 'sovereignty' thing is all about, anyway, and how a state is supposed to convince everyone else that a strip of land or water belongs to it. There are lots of philosophical considerations about what makes a country a country but the practical matters, in my opinion, are seriously foggy at this point.
The real battle for that will probably be fought in international courts.
If it gets as bad as whats in these articles then the international courts won't have the last say. [Insert country name here] will not jeopardize their national security and survival on the say so of an international court. Who would that be? It could very well be the U.S., China, Russian federation of states, or the European Union. Not to mention that if something like that was in the foreseeable future you are also looking at a league of Arab nations for self protection or an alignment with a foreign power. The world would never have known such savagery. A little melodramatic but it gives one a picture.
You're probably right, it's so hard to tell what things would be like that far ahead. The precident does not really exist for a worldwide energy shortage on that kind of magnitude.
The situation to which Bradclark is referring (i.e. a future scenario in which desperation for fuel to stave off society's collapse trumps legal and internation relations considerations) is what I was referring to when I originally brought the matter up (as I said earlier, I was worried about the apocalyptic scenario described in Skybird's articles). I never meant the suggest that the United States would casually invade Canada on a whim during normal times - I hope no one here thought I was suggesting that (although the lack of angry American remarks directed at me suggests I was indeed understood). In desperate times, if the national fabric of a nation was about to unravel, who knows what steps its government might take to preserve it. All that really is idle speculation though, as fatty seems to be suggesting, so I guess we can let it go at this point.
As interesting as the debate on Canadian Arctic Sovereignty is, I won't drag this thread off topic by commenting on it too much. However, I do think I read something about the US finally considering ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, although recognition of the Arctic Waters as internal Canadian waters instead of an international waterway probably wouldn't accompany that. I actually wrote a 4th year political science paper on this subject; I received an A, but I don't remember my exact subject.:88)
In regards to the original subject, does anyone know if there has been any success in developing alternate fuel sources? From what I understand, there hasn't been a lot. Also, does anyone know if the expansion of Canadian reserves would help keep prices in check, even if just a little? Canadian resources appear to be one factor (however small) that Skybird's articles did not seem to take into account - the only references to Canada were along the lines of: imports to the US from friendly nations such as Canada and Norway would decrease, although I didn't see any elaboration (I might have missed something like that though).
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.