Barbara:

Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil.

Yes, it does take increased effort to drill and explore into account. The high probability is that we have already discovered substantially all the cheap oil that is available, and more effort will not pay off. There are some known undeveloped resources, and it is assumed those will be developed; the thing is, that increased production will not make up for the declining production of other fields already near tap-out.

I believe you are right about us being in the Middle East for the oil, but think about what that really means. 2010 (or thereabouts) is when a natural oil shortage will occur, but we've already seen one artificial one. We will hit the wall no later than that, but we could hit it earlier, if something happens to disrupt production levels -- like a major catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. As things stand now, and provided we're willing to go on dying for it ad infinitum, American companies control Iraq's oil production, and as long as we can count on Saudi Arabia, too, we've got a way to increase production to meet our increasing demand until the global production peak itself.

Barbara:

Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil.

Yes, it does take increased effort to drill and explore into account. The high probability is that we have already discovered substantially all the cheap oil that is available, and more effort will not pay off. There are some known undeveloped resources, and it is assumed those will be developed; the thing is, that increased production will not make up for the declining production of other fields already near tap-out.

I believe you are right about us being in the Middle East for the oil, but think about what that really means. 2010 (or thereabouts) is when a natural oil shortage will occur, but we've already seen one artificial one. We will hit the wall no later than that, but we could hit it earlier, if something happens to disrupt production levels -- like a major catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. As things stand now, and provided we're willing to go on dying for it ad infinitum, American companies control Iraq's oil production, and as long as we can count on Saudi Arabia, too, we've got a way to increase production to meet our increasing demand until the global production peak itself.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil.

Yes, it does take increased effort to drill and explore into account. The high probability is that we have already discovered substantially all the cheap oil that is available, and more effort will not pay off. There are some known undeveloped resources, and it is assumed those will be developed; the thing is, that increased production will not make up for the declining production of other fields already near tap-out.

I believe you are right about us being in the Middle East for the oil, but think about what that really means. 2010 (or thereabouts) is when a natural oil shortage will occur, but we've already seen one artificial one. We will hit the wall no later than that, but we could hit it earlier, if something happens to disrupt production levels -- like a major catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. As things stand now, and provided we're willing to go on dying for it ad infinitum, American companies control Iraq's oil production, and as long as we can count on Saudi Arabia, too, we've got a way to increase production to meet our increasing demand until the global production peak itself.

Well I am trying to think about what it really means. If we do end up controlling it, that means our gov't can directly or indirectly not only ration it to the rest of the world to make it last longer, they could also ration it to us in America through various methods: price increases, rationed supply, etc., and while or while not also begin developing alternative energy sources (or in the case of this particular admin, give the free market the impetus or heads up to do so). I was wondering if our control of the bulk of the rest of the resources and/or rationing it was factored into the "deadline". This summer's higher gasoline prices are supposed to decrease after today, but they have inched up in the last couple of years nevertheless. For instance, it appears the days of $.99/gal gas is over, that was over 5 years ago, I think. We were averaging $1.49-$1.59 before the summer, I believe. Precious resources command the highest prices, and controlling it provides a way to delay or mollify a chaotic market and a more wide-ranging economic devestation, as well as perhaps delay the depletion, IMO.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Barbara:

Thing is, do those take into account if American was to start a drilling and exploration frenzy, say right after E2004? You see, right or wrong, I get more and more convinced we are in the Middle East for the oil.

Yes, it does take increased effort to drill and explore into account. The high probability is that we have already discovered substantially all the cheap oil that is available, and more effort will not pay off. There are some known undeveloped resources, and it is assumed those will be developed; the thing is, that increased production will not make up for the declining production of other fields already near tap-out.

I believe you are right about us being in the Middle East for the oil, but think about what that really means. 2010 (or thereabouts) is when a natural oil shortage will occur, but we've already seen one artificial one. We will hit the wall no later than that, but we could hit it earlier, if something happens to disrupt production levels -- like a major catastrophe in the Persian Gulf. As things stand now, and provided we're willing to go on dying for it ad infinitum, American companies control Iraq's oil production, and as long as we can count on Saudi Arabia, too, we've got a way to increase production to meet our increasing demand until the global production peak itself.

Well I am trying to think about what it really means. If we do end up controlling it, that means our gov't can directly or indirectly not only ration it to the rest of the world to make it last longer, they could also ration it to us in America through various methods: price increases, rationed supply, etc., and while or while not also begin developing alternative energy sources (or in the case of this particular admin, give the free market the impetus or heads up to do so). I was wondering if our control of the bulk of the rest of the resources and/or rationing it was factored into the "deadline". This summer's higher gasoline prices are supposed to decrease after today, but they have inched up in the last couple of years nevertheless. For instance, it appears the days of $.99/gal gas is over, that was over 5 years ago, I think. We were averaging $1.49-$1.59 before the summer, I believe. Precious resources command the highest prices, and controlling it provides a way to delay or mollify a chaotic market and a more wide-ranging economic devestation, as well as perhaps delay the depletion, IMO.

Barbara:

The problem isn't "running out" of oil, but running out of cheap oil. When we hit the production peak, only half of the world's oil will have been pumped, so there will still be a lot of it in the ground. It's just that we will be unable to produce it at the rates we've been doing. Oil production will decline, while demand for oil continues to go up, and that means the price of oil will skyrocket.

So rationing oil, by price increases, production slowdowns, or any other means, would be self-defeating. It would simply produce the effect of the oil crunch ahead of time.

The only way out of this mess, and we will be forced to it one way or another, is to massively increase our energy efficiency. That will reduce demand for oil, dropping it below production once again. Combine that with a switch to renewable energy, and we have the problem licked once and for all.

Barbara:

The problem isn't "running out" of oil, but running out of cheap oil. When we hit the production peak, only half of the world's oil will have been pumped, so there will still be a lot of it in the ground. It's just that we will be unable to produce it at the rates we've been doing. Oil production will decline, while demand for oil continues to go up, and that means the price of oil will skyrocket.

So rationing oil, by price increases, production slowdowns, or any other means, would be self-defeating. It would simply produce the effect of the oil crunch ahead of time.

The only way out of this mess, and we will be forced to it one way or another, is to massively increase our energy efficiency. That will reduce demand for oil, dropping it below production once again. Combine that with a switch to renewable energy, and we have the problem licked once and for all.

Brian?

I think you are correct about The End Of Cheap Oil. The point made here in this article is that soon the prices of oil products will gouge us much more deeply than we are used to. Our lives will face serious economic adjustment because of it, and most likely by 2010-12. I know that the Canadian sands etc. hold out some hope, but those are costly alternatives, both to our pocketbooks and to the environment.

I am a strong advocate of nuclear energy because I did 22 years of research and consulting on many aspects of biological effects from nuclear operations. After retiring from it, I have concluded we are deluded as a culture by some prevailing attitude like ?Split Wood Not Atoms.? And indeed I went to Hanford as a hippie radical against all aspects of the military-industrial complex. Now I think nuclear-electric would go very far in achieving what we perceive to be ?homeland security.?

We might even be close to avoiding the use of very large amounts of uranium and plutonium, the fuel of atom bombs, and instead use the emerging technology of thorium reactors.

Leave the oil for the plastics, I say, and put every effort toward national energy independence. Nuclear-electric is a good way to go. And I am more concerned than your ordinary frog about protecting critters and the environment.

--Croaker

Brian?

I think you are correct about The End Of Cheap Oil. The point made here in this article is that soon the prices of oil products will gouge us much more deeply than we are used to. Our lives will face serious economic adjustment because of it, and most likely by 2010-12. I know that the Canadian sands etc. hold out some hope, but those are costly alternatives, both to our pocketbooks and to the environment.

I am a strong advocate of nuclear energy because I did 22 years of research and consulting on many aspects of biological effects from nuclear operations. After retiring from it, I have concluded we are deluded as a culture by some prevailing attitude like ?Split Wood Not Atoms.? And indeed I went to Hanford as a hippie radical against all aspects of the military-industrial complex. Now I think nuclear-electric would go very far in achieving what we perceive to be ?homeland security.?

We might even be close to avoiding the use of very large amounts of uranium and plutonium, the fuel of atom bombs, and instead use the emerging technology of thorium reactors.

Leave the oil for the plastics, I say, and put every effort toward national energy independence. Nuclear-electric is a good way to go. And I am more concerned than your ordinary frog about protecting critters and the environment.

--Croaker

Croaker:

My belief is that the emphasis of our energy policy should be on the other end, not the production of energy but the way we consume it. Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%. A tenfold increase in our energy efficiency equals a tenfold increase in energy production, for practical purposes. That's where we have the most room to maneuver and that's where we should start.

How we produce the energy that we do consume (since no matter how efficient we get we have to consume some) is a secondary consideration. While I am somewhat less phobic about nuclear power than some people, and consider it preferable to, say, coal, it should still be regarded as a last resort. It is nonrenewable, requires huge capital investments, is overly centralized, and presents environmental dangers of its own. If we can meet our energy needs, after efficiency improvements, with solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other renewable methods, we should.

Croaker:

My belief is that the emphasis of our energy policy should be on the other end, not the production of energy but the way we consume it. Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%. A tenfold increase in our energy efficiency equals a tenfold increase in energy production, for practical purposes. That's where we have the most room to maneuver and that's where we should start.

How we produce the energy that we do consume (since no matter how efficient we get we have to consume some) is a secondary consideration. While I am somewhat less phobic about nuclear power than some people, and consider it preferable to, say, coal, it should still be regarded as a last resort. It is nonrenewable, requires huge capital investments, is overly centralized, and presents environmental dangers of its own. If we can meet our energy needs, after efficiency improvements, with solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and other renewable methods, we should.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%.

How are you defining energy efficiency?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%.

How are you defining energy efficiency?

Energy efficiency = energy applied towards the desired purpose divided by energy potential of fuel consumed.

In driving a car, for example, the desired purpose is to move the car's occupant(s) from one place to another. The energy necessary to move the mass of those occupants the required distance is calculable; so is the energy potential of the gasoline burned to do it. The ratio of the first amount to the second is the energy efficiency of driving the car, which is about 4-5% as cars are built today. (Other forms of energy production and use are more efficient, resulting in that overall 10% figure.)

Energy efficiency = energy applied towards the desired purpose divided by energy potential of fuel consumed.

In driving a car, for example, the desired purpose is to move the car's occupant(s) from one place to another. The energy necessary to move the mass of those occupants the required distance is calculable; so is the energy potential of the gasoline burned to do it. The ratio of the first amount to the second is the energy efficiency of driving the car, which is about 4-5% as cars are built today. (Other forms of energy production and use are more efficient, resulting in that overall 10% figure.)

I agree with Brian in principle about conservation and renewable energy, but I think a consumption-craved democracy like ours will go kicking and screaming if led in that direction. But, then again, maybe a 4T crisis will change all that.

I agree with Brian in principle about conservation and renewable energy, but I think a consumption-craved democracy like ours will go kicking and screaming if led in that direction. But, then again, maybe a 4T crisis will change all that.

People like Brian would love to be able to say something like, "Who said anything about Democracy?", if they thought they could get away with it.

People like Brian would love to be able to say something like, "Who said anything about Democracy?", if they thought they could get away with it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My belief is that the emphasis of our energy policy should be on the other end, not the production of energy but the way we consume it. Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%. A tenfold increase in our energy efficiency equals a tenfold increase in energy production, for practical purposes. That's where we have the most room to maneuver and that's where we should start.

Indeed, I agree completely with your assessment. What's more, the financial pinch which will accompany an oil production peak (which will be increasingly anticipated as the peak approaches, and thus make itself felt before the peak arrives) will render investigation into efficiencies even more profitable than it is now. A hefty reward will be realized by those who correctly anticipated the changing environment and will be most properly oriented to supply this revitalized demand. I'd argue that many of the efficiencies we've seen introduced in the last couple decades are examples of anticipating this threshold.

The thing is, people will find ways of continuing to go about their daily lives. The sun bathes us in 3000 W/m^2 flux. Even more of its energy goes right past us. The energy is there (even if in the form of burning wood -- powered ultimately by solar flux) for the entire sensible future. The shift away from oil to whatever comes next will cause dislocations primarily politically. Assuming these political dislocations can be kept from interfering (an unlikely assumption, if ever there was one ), people will find it in their interest to adapt, and their lives will continue with only some peripheral details altered.

The nature of the issue, then, does not inherently contain the seeds of a crisis. The nature of the world's governing institutions, and the way they will react to it, though -- these are the things to be feared.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My belief is that the emphasis of our energy policy should be on the other end, not the production of energy but the way we consume it. Our current energy efficiency in this country overall is about 10%. It could, with some effort and investment, be raised to 40%. With a lot more effort, it could perhaps climb as high as 90%. A tenfold increase in our energy efficiency equals a tenfold increase in energy production, for practical purposes. That's where we have the most room to maneuver and that's where we should start.

Indeed, I agree completely with your assessment. What's more, the financial pinch which will accompany an oil production peak (which will be increasingly anticipated as the peak approaches, and thus make itself felt before the peak arrives) will render investigation into efficiencies even more profitable than it is now. A hefty reward will be realized by those who correctly anticipated the changing environment and will be most properly oriented to supply this revitalized demand. I'd argue that many of the efficiencies we've seen introduced in the last couple decades are examples of anticipating this threshold.

The thing is, people will find ways of continuing to go about their daily lives. The sun bathes us in 3000 W/m^2 flux. Even more of its energy goes right past us. The energy is there (even if in the form of burning wood -- powered ultimately by solar flux) for the entire sensible future. The shift away from oil to whatever comes next will cause dislocations primarily politically. Assuming these political dislocations can be kept from interfering (an unlikely assumption, if ever there was one ), people will find it in their interest to adapt, and their lives will continue with only some peripheral details altered.

The nature of the issue, then, does not inherently contain the seeds of a crisis. The nature of the world's governing institutions, and the way they will react to it, though -- these are the things to be feared.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Energy efficiency = energy applied towards the desired purpose divided by energy potential of fuel consumed.

In driving a car, for example, the desired purpose is to move the car's occupant(s) from one place to another. The energy necessary to move the mass of those occupants the required distance is calculable; so is the energy potential of the gasoline burned to do it. The ratio of the first amount to the second is the energy efficiency of driving the car, which is about 4-5% as cars are built today. (Other forms of energy production and use are more efficient, resulting in that overall 10% figure.)

I thought it might be something like this you had in mind. I would suggest that the purpose of driving a car is not solely moving the occupants from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Energy efficiency = energy applied towards the desired purpose divided by energy potential of fuel consumed.

In driving a car, for example, the desired purpose is to move the car's occupant(s) from one place to another. The energy necessary to move the mass of those occupants the required distance is calculable; so is the energy potential of the gasoline burned to do it. The ratio of the first amount to the second is the energy efficiency of driving the car, which is about 4-5% as cars are built today. (Other forms of energy production and use are more efficient, resulting in that overall 10% figure.)

I thought it might be something like this you had in mind. I would suggest that the purpose of driving a car is not solely moving the occupants from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I would suggest that the purpose of driving a car is not solely moving the occupants from point A to point B.

Ha!

A superb riposte. Bravo!

However, might no the bulk of those ancillary purposes (for moving from A to B is in fact the primary task of driving) now fulfilled by driving motor vehicles be also met -- maybe even more fully -- through some other activity? Serving fine food on a ballistic submarine may make one's tour of duty more palatable, but changes not a whit the goal of the vehicle; what's more, a good outdoor cafe or backyard barbeque would prove a much superior environment for enjoying one's meals.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I would suggest that the purpose of driving a car is not solely moving the occupants from point A to point B.

Ha!

A superb riposte. Bravo!

However, might no the bulk of those ancillary purposes (for moving from A to B is in fact the primary task of driving) now fulfilled by driving motor vehicles be also met -- maybe even more fully -- through some other activity? Serving fine food on a ballistic submarine may make one's tour of duty more palatable, but changes not a whit the goal of the vehicle; what's more, a good outdoor cafe or backyard barbeque would prove a much superior environment for enjoying one's meals.

Whoa, back that truck up a bit, Brian. :wink: I was discussing current and shortterm future realities, and you launched into your noble-yet-idealistic futereworld. And, as Croaker says there's indeed going to be much kicking and screaming, and as Justin points out, political kicking and screaming before today turns into your tomorrow. Probably half a life time's worth at quickest. I'm trying to center on what we have in store in the relative present.

Oil companies like ExxonM, Shell and BP are not going to go quietly or quickly into that good night, and neither will their political influences. GWB is going to look out for them, period. These companies are not at all like Enron, which was basically an unsoundly run scam. The big oil companies are neither unsoundly run nor scams. And, like's been pointed out, consumers aren't going to wake up any morning soon and say, oh boy, conservation and life change is here. Death to big oil! Not even if they have to pay $2.50 or $3.50 a gallon. My guess is that they will sooner cry to the government to subsidize the cost to them in our energy policy. I'm still waiting for the shoe to drop when they have to start paying for electricity grid rebuilding as a "benefit" of deregulation. hehe :o

We are IMO the beginning of the final stage of "real" free markets for utilities/energy (to which I say thank god if it does come true). What a time to deregulate and promise lower competitive costs when each type of energy needs so much additional infrastructure investment, but, you know, maybe that was known all along. I mean, how couldn't that be known to all these experts? That part maybe is like Enron. I mention other types of energy along with oil here because it's part and parcel of same. My guess is that the real free market cost of the future of these items will become so high that the public will demand it be subsidized, or that the governement goes ahead and includes this as part of policy before any major ugliness ensues. This was what I was getting at about us controlling world oil. If this is the "cheap" oil, fine. But, subsidizing expensive exploration (via bail-outs, tax credits, or nationalization even, as last resort) is a more likely possibility, and one that IMO is more realitistic in the near term than what you have described (long term, way off).

Personally I bet GWB and his successor(s) will give ExxonM et al the greatest amount of time possible to shift their product and purpose, ie, years, even decades perhaps. He and his successor(s) will give them the greatest possible time to wring the rest of their profit from the stock market and the consumer, too. The consumer will be the first to bend over, of course. :wink: