Like many people you confuse PO with the effects of PO. At TOD we really should try to be precise with terms.

Strictly speaking Peak Oil means peak of production, you are talking about consequences of PO. You are referring to what Roger Rapier calls Peak Oil Lite - even if production has not peaked, it will have effects similar to an actual peak.

I would concede they are saying the same thing as Peak Oil Lite, a shortfall will cause high prices. But they haven't admitted that oil supply will go into terminal decline - not yet.

I think there is an important difference. The message that IEA gives is that while the consumers will have a rough ride for a bit, the onus is on the suppliers to get their act together. This allows consumers to remain complacent.

The message we would like to give, is that consumers must not wait for suppliers to increase supplies (we believe they can't), but must be proactive in developing alternative sources and promoting conservation. If IEA said forget about oil, develop renewables, it would be quite a different outlook.

Even with the IEA's fairly stern warning, I expect we will have several more rounds of calls on OPEC to increase output, and OPEC saying they are not going to. OPEC play a dangerous game with that.

ThatsItI'mOut
Roger Conners

You've put your finger on the problem. The strategy of the powers that be has shifted to maintain the status quo as long as possible, rather than outright denial. If the gurus and talking heads get honest the handwriting is on the wall for multinational oil companies, and the multinationals don't want to go out of business or change their paradigm so that their personal power and positions change for good.

Think about this for a bit: Everything changed with the first oil crisis in 1972

Before 1972
-major oil companies produce nearly
100% of the non-communist oil
-Only Majors have technology to drill and produce
Major oil companies can drill virtually all of the non communist world
-Russians and majors boycott each other, so markets are safe
-Majors control prices through swing capability of Texas

Now
-Multi-nationals produce less than 12% of the world production
-almost all prodction and new exploration technology controlled by geophysical and engineering firms with no interest in production (Schlumerger, Baker-Hughes Haliburton ect)
-Multinationals are restricted to less than 1/8th the potentially productive areas for E&P
-National oil companies control the products markets by petrochemical and refinery building decisions being made for political as well as profit motive
-prices controlled by demand and by investment decisions made by national companies

In other words, I'm saying the whole nature of the international oil business has changed and the former major oil companies don't control the oil business anymore. Yet our national governments in the OECD are buffaloed into believing that its true. Do you really think that the Neocons would have started the attempted conquest of Iraq if they'd thought about how the real power has shifted in the international oil business.

I might add that I started reading The Oil Drum 1 year and 27 weeks ago. I've studied the situation now for about a year and a half, but I believed like most people on the planet that the Multinationals were still people controlling the oil business. But, as I've read and thought about the problem my perception and conclusions have changed.

I think the multi-nationals are quickly accelerating on a downhill slide, and the whole integrated oil business is fixing to morph out of existance. There's a place for large independents in both the production and petrochemical/refining business and in the marketing business. So I'm fixing to sell my major company stock while the gettings good, I think CNBC noticing that the liquids production is down at ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco is the start of the crack in the dam thats going to bring it all down.

So, ladies and gentlemen, please argue with me about this, or add your own supporting observations. My conclusion is just too extreme for me to be comfortable with, yet, there it is-the multinationals will be out of business within 10 years and the oil business so changed as to be unrecognisable.
Bob Ebersole

I think he was fishing for investment advice because he also asked about water which Pickens is also investing in water pipeline projects.

2+ weeks, plus the woodstove and fuel to keep warm and cook, plus water, plus a garden, plus a bit of farmland outside of the village.

Plus the local farmers, plus the local forest, plus a regional agricultural structure (that is, stores filled with local produce), plus a society which seems to have been concerned about such things for a long time.

Of all the things I have listed, the last is the most critical.

Though my fear of how humans act in groups is almost unbounded (being recently marginally involved in a tiny-teeny net incident only reinforced the idea of how, as one of the people calling me sociopathic noted, 'crazy is catching'), the fact remains we are social animals.

Though personal responsibility and preparation are certainly necessary, it is society which is of overriding importance.

To put it bluntly - for decades, the U.S. has been cutting down orchards, ripping up pasture, and replacing farmland with suburbia. In Germany, people have been planting orchards, stopped using pesticides on pastures, and building windmills on farmland.

Does this mean that Germany will likely face coming challenges better than the U.S.? Certainly. Does this mean that after only 1/3 of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is expended in a desperate attempt to 'defend the fuel' the future will be so bright we will all need to wear shades? Maybe.

In a way, this where we actually agree - I think the U.S. is going insane, and will not be able to survive long in its present form. However, the U.S. is not the world.

2-3years food,140 fruit trees,BIG garden,spring,1000gal propane,seed,and spring for water.I have made "emergency"prep one of the main goals..{some people race cars,some people do football,wear top end clothing and eat at fine dining establishments...me,I prepare for a existence as a prosperous peasant ....I think maybe more folks here do more than they may say....I just got a shock from a co-worker who has gotten on the "prep" bandwagon.You would never expect it from his public persona...

In general you need 1-2 months food on hand, plus water and the ability to heat things.

Most people can survive for 3-7 days on what they have around, but given the evolution of most possible events you need more to allow you the option to plan and adapt. If you think in terms of staples and canned food then 1 box of goods should suffice one person for one month. Simply multiply up and add as much water as you can store. Adding some cheap cans to the shopping is an easy way to grow your supplies.

Its a measure of how dependent our society has become that most people don't think about where their supplies come from and would look to outside help if anything happened. Your grandmother wouldn't, partly because she's lived through hard times, and partly because they prided themselves on self-reliance.

Being adult enough to look after yourself is a lesson we all need to relearn.

For us flesh-eating zombies, there is plenty of food at hand.

;)

Sometimes, I know exactly what you mean.

Which is one of the ever varying number of reasons I don't live in the U.S. any longer.

Because once out of the U.S., you realize that the U.S. isn't the mainstream, either.

This reality will become a lot more apparent in the future, I think, as a lot of people worldwide start really looking at the U.S.'s dynamic economy, while asking for their money back.

There is a funny story from the region I live in concerning a company called Flowtex ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlowTex - German only ), which pulled off the largest economic crime in West German history. The scam basically involved leasing horizontal drilling machines (for water, gas, telephone lines) which didn't exist. The story concerned a bank employee who was looking for 'his' tens of millions of marks in machinery, frantically running around the parking lot of the company, checking the serial numbers of the few drills there (a company employee used to stamp out the serial number plates, actually, sometimes multiple times in a busy day of leasing the same few machines over and over). He refused to believe that the entire company was a scam, and his refusal to believe was in part because of his failure to actually check to see if what he was financing even actually existed or was worth what he paid for it - the money, of course, being long gone in the company owner's villa, helicopter, lavish parties, etc.

The U.S. is Flowtex, on a grand scale. It doesn't bother me in the least not to be part of the mainstream.

I, too, am uncomfortable in the mainstream as anyone who supports ethanol and still posts at TOD must be. As the mainstream acknowledges what we've know at TOD for a couple of years i.e. that we are past peak, it will be like when I first found out about peak oil. Shock at the realization and amazement that few, especially the powers that be, know or care. But as time goes by and the world does not come to an end and PO turns out to be a slow developing process measured in years and imperceptible except in short spurts of panic, you learn to deal with it. I bought corn stoves to heat my house and a flex fuel Ford Ranger to burn E85 which was a mistake because E85 is priced too high for its energy content. I think the mainstream will go though the same process. Right now gas prices are slow to follow crude to new highs. I think this is because the effects of the economic slow down, conservation due to higher prices, tar sands production, ethanol, and biodiesel together are mitigating the early stages of PO. There are still big savings to be had in oil use that will be forced on the U.S. as the decline unfolds. None of them are yet life threatening and will be slowly accepted by the mainstream just as the PO idea is finally being accepted, although it's been obvious for years.

An idealized Republican, say Eisenhower, would do as well in dealing with post-Peak Oil. IMHO, I would rather have Eisenhower than FDR in charge, if we could recreate historical figures. Eisenhower was more effective with *FAR* less wheel spinning in his major initiatives than FDR, and much more incisive in analyzing the problem.

Your faith in the Democrats is misplaced,

Alan

The political colour of the Government is irrelevant, none of them can do anything to mitigate what is coming. Government (of any colour) is constrained by a rationale that will not allow it to do what needs to be done, in fact the actions of Government will only make things worse (failing governments usually turn on their own people).

Eventually, a new type of rule will develop governed by a different rationale that would seem totally unacceptable by today's standards. Crises will be the agent of change, but in the meantime, people will have to rely upon themselves and community.

I sometimes get the impression that people think changing one lot of political ass's for another will somehow get them through the coming chaos. It won't IMO. Only peoples' own individual actions will and the first action is to dump any notion that Government will save them. The second is to disengage their lives from and dependency upon the national economy.

Too many of today's Dems are almost in the same "government is bad, taxes are evil, corporate profits are the only thing that matters " mindset as the Republicans.

AKA "I take money from the same corporations that they do, because without the money we all take, we can't be considered 'serious' nor can we 'win.'"

It is very difficult for anyone not supported by the corporatocracy to get elected in the US. Most congresscritters are owned lock, stock, & barrel by big business. As long as peak oil (or climate change) denial is (perceived to be) in the interests of large corporations, we're unlikely to see anything but business as usual. Large corporations are VERY conservative entities. They got where they are through the status quo, and they will cling to the status quo beyond all reason.

That having been said, politicians sometimes rise to the occasion, if the emergency is well-timed. In that regard I think it is important that the crisis become obvious while Bush is still president, or immediately after the next president takes office (assuming it is a Democrat).

If TSHTF a year or two into a Democratic president's term, he/she will take the blame, and the next president will be a Republican. That is my nightmare scenario, a kind of anti-FDR who, faced with a transcendent crisis, screws it up royally. If the crisis waits till then, it's probably better that a Republican win in '08, as dangerous as that for other reasons.

I think listening to politicians is a waste of time. It's not a capital offense to lie to the people, even though it should be! It is a little better to watch what they do, but it is too late then, as they are already in power and deeply indebted to the 'Iron Triangle.' I'd highly recommend reading Dmitry Orlov's 'Closing the Collapse Gap' and some of his other articles (if you haven't already), as he is an excellent writer. His webiste is http://www.cluborlov.com/ClubOrlov/ConfSlides/index.html

'Closing the Collapse Gap' can be found here, as the link on his website is broken: http://www.energybulletin.net/23259.html

Yeah - maybe they meany by 20:30 this evening:-)

Echelon - what a bunch of unintelligible nonsense! Did you actually have a point to make????

It's me. Hardcore, huh? You gonna write me or what? I've been looking for you.

Hi Jerome;
I have to say it can be tough to pull away from this series of electric conversations and news (eg, TOD) and get back into my workshop and actually do some mitigation at the Homeowner level.. but I have some new nicks in my fingertips from building my new solar heat collectors to start to 'divest' my heating system away from #2 Oil.. with a bunch more hack-sawing, I'll have the pulley-rig on the roof today, and start hoisting.

I have a stockpile of glass to make a bunch more.. and I never walk past a dumpster that has mirrors, 2x4 or insulation in it, without seeing if any of it is ready for it's next assignment.

If this comes off as a Nyah, Nyah to others who would want to be doing this, it's less that than a reminder that this is an option you should consider when weighing all the things you can do today to honor those soldiers who are over there trying to protect 'Freedom, Liberty and Pipelines' (Not necessarily in that order). You probably need family time, probably need the rest day.. Just remind yourself that any project you could be doing to address this issue IS IMPORTANT. It's as important as Vacuuming the Car, Taking the kids to the Pool, and even going to work. Getting your family's energy profile reduced, and increasing your home's resiliency in case of outages and price hikes IS PROVIDING FOR YOUR FAMILY, and it IS SUPPORTING YOUR COUNTRY and WORLD.

Best of luck,
Bob Fiske

I'll be in a room full of corn farmers - can't touch the ethanol EROI problem.

I was thinking something along these lines:

"Today on the way here I had to wait to fill my tank in Emmetsburg because the pumps in Graettinger are dry. Last month my mother and brother went to North Dakota and they saw the same thing up there. We see articles in the paper about tankers having to wait overnight to be sure they get a load of fuel. Do we have a problem here? If so, what will you do during your first four years in office to ensure we can produce the energy we consume within our own borders?"

I think the way to pose this is to start with the diesel shortages, then segue into talk of using wind power in Iowa to drive trains. I'll do this if the opportunity arises.

I must be mindful - they already know. I have some hope that given the beginnings of coverage within the MSM I can get the discussion started. I'm just a catalyst in this - I don't expect any 'real' progress, just trying to get people talking at this point.

If the French can do it, why can't we do it ?

Thats because they are french and you are americans. French (and all europeans) have a long history, art, culture, economy and identity before the oil age. They really know how to exist, prosper and manager their resources in a low energy world. That is something americans, which are a new nation in the world have yet to learn.

Since its existence, that is since whites settled there and it got a political identity and unity, americans are used to of using enormous resources, starting with virgin lands for agriculture, abundant resources of precious metals, coal, oil, gas etc that they have specialized in a fast use of resources to gain power with no knowledge about proper and sensible maintenance of resources.

Europeans knew how to manage their agricultural lands, using three field systems, centuries before whites settled in america. Europeans also have a much kinder, reasonable and sensible attitude towards nature than americans do.

This pretty much matches what I've come up with but we have generally offset declines by using new technology the increases the depletion rate. Acceleration in the percentage decline just means we are loosing a fixed or increasing amount of production regardless of the based production. In effect the decline is pretty much a independent variable and not tied to the base production rate. The amount produced is of course tied to the geology but how the fields decline is tied to technology. But overall your simply losing X amount of wells each year regardless of field.

This means a VERY interesting number is the number of wells taken offline each year. Its wells drilled/wells removed.

What I think is happening is that technical advances such as horizontal wells has allowed us to keep the per well flow rates constant or even increasing but the lifetime of a well has dropped considerably over the last 30 years.

We have reached the point that two things are taking place.
1.) We can't really drill any more wells since we have run out of places to drill.
2.) The lifetime of a modern well has dropped from say twenty years to ten.

http://www.oxy.com/Social%20Responsibility/environment/oog_remediate.htm

However in this case its given as 7-10 years.

http://www.backissuesofnewsalerts.us/CSLG0817.html

You would have to find the right info to confirm this but
I'm pretty confident you will find that the lifespan of modern wells is on average half that of wells drilled 30 years ago.

This link gives a lifespan of 3-5 years.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/OilSands/pdfs/RPT_Chops_chptr5.pdf

So looking at how long wells last and how many of the older wells are being capped I think that my prediction of a steep drop in production in the near future is well founded.
And not only are the life times shorter but the production rate is increasing per well. This has allowed us to increase production rates well past 50% URR.

We are in a lot deeper $%&@ then most people realize.

jkissing said
"98.5 in 2015 is a fantasy, even 85 IMO highly unlikely."

That might be true, but equally a fantasy is 98.5 milion barrels of demand per day in 2015.

To accept that, one would have to believe that (a) All the developed world economies will roar along at full steam, (b) that China and India will continue every year at what has been exceptional, even dare I say, "bubble" making growth rates, and (c) that NONE of the rapidly developing technology in efficiency in transport will work or catch hold.

I simply don't buy it. And niether do the Saudi's or many of the major oil companies. They are much more frightened by a possible fast decline, or at least complete lack of growth in demand than they are by the so called "peak oil" lack of supply problem, thus, the needed investments in P/E are late and too small. Thus, the oil companies, both national and private, are in some creating a self fullfilling prophecy. Due to their lack of investment, projects are delayed or not started at all, Thus, as jkissng says, " Chris' mega projects show nothing much planned after 2012, and projects require at least six years to bring on line following decision (and announcement) to invest..."

The result of this of course is rising prices for oil, and the result of that {of course) is that efficiency technology is funded and gets better, and economies slow, and the result of that is (of course) that demand slows, depending on how fast recession takes hold, and the efficiency technology takes hold, especially in transportation.

De Marjorie and others say, "100 million barrels per day, never" in relation to oil production. I think they are right.

I say, "100 million barrels per day demand, never"....or well, damm close to never, which I never like to say. :-)

RC