Violent revolutions, the stuff of history, are not the norm. Mostly, people just get along, and as hard times get harder, they just put their heads down and get along harder. Starving people don't really have the energy to revolt, especially against an overwhelming military -- and that's the odds a revolution would face in the USA. Even the Depression of the '30's didn't come close to revolution, and maybe it was because of Roosevelt and the New Deal, and maybe not. My personal opinion is that the Communists wouldn't really have gotten anywhere, even without Roosevelt, but even back then the government was fine-tuning the psyops war against the people.

I doubt that all the "militias" who think of themselves as the protectors of American Freedom will have much of an impact no matter how many guns they have. The Army will trump them in short order -- in fact, the militias may well be turned on each other by a savvy Army. Allowing the 2nd Amendment to stand when the 1st and 4th and 5th have essentially been abrogated without any significant outcry suggests a very sophisticated and successful government apparatus.

The folks who run this country may just be playing dumb -- or perhaps they just put dumb mouthpieces out there in the showcase Congress to confuse us -- but they are really the smartest guys in the world. We are in for a long, slow squeeze.

The US has several large factors cushioning the impact of peak oil. In addition to own production, the US has lots of available land, a huge military, a large and relatively knowledgeable population.

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this statement. Even George Bush admitted "America is addicted to oil".

It's "own production" is less that 45% of it's consumption.

"Lot's of available land" does not mean much; are you thinking of the Southwest, which is now in long-term drought/dustbowl conditions? Wide swaths of agricultural lands that are increasingly permeated with petrochemical/salt herbicides?

"Relatively knowledgeable population" knowing what, exactly? That they are on a trajectory that will bankrupt them over coming higher priced imports? Do they show their intelligence by refusing to buy SUVs, pickups, and minivans? No indeed, they are back to buying them at alarming percentages;

Light trucks accounted for almost half of overall vehicle sales in August, up from 42 percent a year earlier. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67T3DN20100901

So with a very inefficient vehicle fleet (one that turns over every 18 years), I'll put my money on Robert Hirsch's predictions of "dire, unprecedented economic impacts" for those countries that wait until peak oil happens to take any real action.

You really think stuff like this can happen without at least a few violent revolutions ?

While I typically eschew political observations, your post has all of the indicators of one who watches FauxNews and Beck's calls for his followers to arm themselves and wait for his instructions....

II am with oelewapperke (how do you pronounce that anyway?).

Sure I can reduce my energy requirements by 50% without much problem and probably live better for it. I would get way more exercise, eat healthier food, and breath cleaner air but here is the rub. That 50% reduction in energy use will come back to bite me. You see I have 2 friends that need me to spend that 50% on energy so that their lives are supported, and they have 2 friends, and they have 2 friends, and so on, until some ones two friends decide not to build a new house which is what I do for a living.

All that energy supports our governments, banks, legal systems, security systems, entertainment, etc. Basically everything we call western civilization. Western civilization is based on growth and a 50% reduction in energy use will be a much larger negative growth event than any great depression ever experienced.

I just don't see how any company, including oil companies, will thrive in that environment. Events like these will trigger so many unforeseen events that even Nostradamus would have trouble prophesizing them.

I just don't see how any company, including oil companys, will thrive in that environment. Events like these will trigger so many unforseen events that even Nastradamus would have trubble profisizing.

Western civilization is based on growth and a 50% reduction in energy use is far worse than any great depresion ever experianced.

In such a future, I think you'll see a lot of subsidization of off-road diesel to benefit farmers and fishermen, though I doubt the government will be able to support fertilizers and the like. I think you'll see truck-farming products increase in price. I don't see a great de-mechanization of farming, because we aren't running out of oil, we're just running out of cheap oil and I think the price-point will get high enough to see a lot more combined coal/biomass liquefaction (with attempts to improve the technology via CCS, but I doubt that will take place).

Mainly, it's going to directly impact consumers: 71% of US oil consumption goes to transportation, and the majority of that goes to private automobiles. I think you'll see airline travel once again become an exclusive playground of the rich, rail shipping continue to pick up as high fuel costs dog trucking, and suburbs will dwindle as people move back into urban areas to save on transportation costs.

All-in-all, a Great Restructuring may not be a bad thing ecologically or economically, considering how much cash we as a nation export to support our oil habits.

The military budget will shrink, that's all there is to it. Yes, this will mean job losses. Even if medicare and social security disappeared tomorrow (which needn't be disastrous), we'd still need to cut military spending just to pay off our debts and reduce the total tax burden to prevent increasing energy costs from dragging down the economy too badly. And you bet that if Uncle Sam isn't paying grandma's medical bills or retirement, there will be howls for drastic income tax cuts, or a complete revamp of the tax code (which will likely mean more job losses at IRS) to help people support their families.

Given that the "high price" scenario is basically equivalent to let's work hard and save*, and that a democrat president was elected, a lot is going to have to change before the US accepts that as a reasonable option.

Nice partisan swipe. I especially like the use of "democrat" vs. "Democratic", a Fox News favorite. Do you happen to recall Dick "our way of life is not negotiable" Cheney? Yes, BushCo was certainly an administration chock full of "fiscally responsible" conservatives! I mean, it's not like the National Debt doubled under those "fiscal conservatives", right?

Here's some news: regardless of which bought-'n'-paid-for party currently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, no U.S. President will (publicly) endorse a 50% consumption cut as a reasonble option. And no middle or working class American wants to hear the words "let's work hard and save" from *any* politician.

(dropping military budget in a volatile world, other than being madness, wouldn't buy the US more than 2 years delay to massive social cuts (and of course would involve putting a *LOT* of people out of a job).

You think cutting the military budget will put a lot of people out of a job (mine included), just how many times more people would have no jobs or businesses after all the multipliers are nullified because 0 (social security spending gone) times anything is 0? The military budget's boost to the economy is little more than bush league when compared to social security spending's giant impact. Thats the converse side of cutting social security does a whole lot more to reduce the deificit than cutting military spending. It is a much tougher rock and an hard spot dilemma than most envision.

Social security money all gets poured right back into the US economy--much of the military money is spent abroad and stays there. Another huge chunk of DOD $ is essentially grafted off the top and though it might help the capital markets and luxury goods sectors some it does little to keep the small business going. Everything will realign politically when big time social security cuts are actually on the table.

Of course, cutting social services will be described in the newspapers as exactly what it is : killing people to save money

So, in the past, where social security wasn't as large as it is today, the government were actually killing people? Interesting viewpoint.

The US has several large factors cushioning the impact of peak oil. In addition to own production, the US has lots of available land, a huge military, a large and relatively knowledgeable population. Europe will lose a *LOT* more,

Why? Because you'll steal ME oil with your huge military? Otherwise, the military mainly waste oil and other resources. And why do you think you can compete with European countries who use oil twice as efficiently and so will be willing to pay twice as much?

Your big asset, actually, is your remnants of free-market thinking. The question is just if you'll hold on to it and expand it if necessary.

She is a social rights activist, and a quite well connected one at that.

Peak oil is quite relevant to her interests, and [edited] speaking to how peak oil impacts her efforts could be quite enlightening. (I guess she already knows something about it or she wouldn't be a speaker.)

Got a problem with that?

Given that the US has done very little (other than invading Iraq and turning one fossil fuel into another called ethanol) in preparation for peak oil, it will be hit very hard when oil first gets scarce. The long commutes and lack of mass transit will hit very hard. It would take 20 years to replace the entire car fleet with an efficient one, even if it became a major political target. That is 20 years when the rest of the world will progressively outbid the US for oil. ( I could easily afford £300 oil for petrol in my car. I already pay the equivalent of $150 in taxes. I use my car less than most people. I could afford to buy a Prius out of loose change). As long as the free market in oil persists. I suspect that the US will increasingly try to use the threat of the military to buy oil at a discount price.

That is 20 years to play catch-up. You may have the most powerful military, but it ain't done much for the oil flow out of Iraq.
After the supply decline starts to build up down the Hubbert curve, that it another matter.

US mileage is going up no matter what you think. Anybody interested in the ramifications? 1979-1982 CAFE increased from 20 to 24 MPG and gasoline consumption decreased 873 kb/d to 6.6 mb/d, where it stayed flat for two more years before gradually increasing once more, after mileage hit its plateau.

Gallons per hundred miles driven (GPHM) is a better figure to use than its reciprocal, as it displays the actual savings in fuel. Initial increases in MPG are greater than those that follow, creating a misleading impression that subsequent increases will have an equal impact. Most of the world already uses the metric equivalent of GPHM, liters/100km. Moving from 18 to 24 MPG saved 1.72 GPHM; going from 27 to 39 under current CAFE goals will save 1.28 GPHM, 74.73% of the earlier figure. This is for cars, not light duty vehicles - trucks and SUVs. The vehicle fleet in the late 70s was 80% cars and 20% LDVs, whereas now it is more like 55/45, so the savings potential will be commensurately lower - 50%, say. Taking 425 kb/d off the market is still nothing to sneeze at.

Another factor to take into consideration is that there are 1.48 times as many drivers as in 1978, and 1.67 times as many vehicles, so new vehicles will have that much more competition for fuel savings. But VMT is also 1.41
times as high, allowing for that much more conservation, and also newer vehicles have a higher share of VMT; according to the 2009 National Household Transportation Survey, VMT is partitioned as follows for vehicle age:

<1	10.17%
1	10.96%
2	10.72%
3	9.93%
4	9.37%
5	9.29%
6	8.98%
7	8.74%
8	8.18%
9	7.86%
10+	5.80%

I can't see why we will suffer that much in the UK

The UK has seen a 40% drop in indigenous energy production in the last decade. You guys just barely skated through this winter with three Gas Balancing Alerts (GBA's). Is your natural gas supply really that secure?

It's about more than just oil. Up to now you've been able to borrow money from the future to import energy in all its forms along with net imports of foodstuffs. If that ability to borrow money from the future ever stops or even just slows down you could be in a world of hurt.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Jon

The situation in the EU mainland is very different to the UK. The UK is an island geographically, politically, economically. There will be no-one to bail us out when PO hits. When tshtf the UK will be one of the first countries to collapse IMHO.

The reason is quite simple, we are over dependant on imports for our basic needs. As energy costs go up more money will be syphoned out of the economy, leading to more bankruptcy and job losses, this will in turn cause downgrading of the UK credit rating, weakening the exchange rate, increasing the import costs of energy, food etc, leading to more bankruptcies..... A very nasty feedback loop.

The markets are already twitchy and we are seeing money moving from small to big currencies (and gold), the GBP exchange rate is barely keeping its head above water. We cant raise interest rates as that will kill the economy. The elephant in the room for the UK is the GBP coupled with over reliance on imports.

From memory, the big jump in UK car usage was(is) the pedo panic and parents driving their kids to school. Also very high house prices have pushed out peoples commute distance so a lot of people cannot reduce their mileage as they cant afford a house near to where they work. Public transport is expensive and is very similar in costs to running a car. The current rail network cannot cope with the demand today let alone a large increase if people stop using cars.

And I would be more worried about food, rather than driving. The UK could not feed itself during WW2 when every last square foot of land was being used for food production. Bigger (and growing) population, more space taken up by housing, roads etc, less farm land, and modern ag system dependant on cheap FF (energy, fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides). We could cheaply import food from the EU, except we are not part of the Euro (oppps), so when the exchange rate for the Pound tanks, food from the EU mainland will get VERY expensive. To make matters worse a lot of farm land is currently not being used (set aside) so if we have a sudden import shock it's going to take 1 year for that set-aside farm land to become productive again.

Personally I think the UK is in terrible trouble, and is probably one of the worst places in the First World to live out the "energy descent"/"long emergency".

The UK is in gross population overshoot and hugely reliant on food imports. It cannot in future hope to feed itself from its own farming. The island is fertile, but the growing season is short, it has little forestry for wood, few remaining unplundered natural resources, and vast legions of feckless, soon-to-be zombies from the cities with no practical skills other than fighting, thieving and producing endless entitled mouths to feed.

The entitlement culture has rotted the heartwood of England, something-for-nothing is everyones goal. Community, and sometimes even humanity is completely absent from the UK. It took moving to mainland Europe to realise how bad things have got back home.

The built environment in UK leaves one reliant on the car outside London, endless estates of dreary soulless noddyhouses with no prospect of redemption, little green space, miles from amenities, shocking bus services and no provision for cycling, walking or even living free from depression. I have visited some of the worst areas of housing built by the communists in East Germany, and they were far, far better buildings and environments to live in than the average housing estate in the UK. Anyone who has visited the suburbs of places like Portsmouth, Glasgow, Bristol or Swindon will have seen these sorts of places. British cities are admittedly above Haiti in terms of running water but are at Somali levels of community spirit. Its a miracle the population ever got so high with the temptations for suicide such crummy places induce in a man. Now just imagine how bad it is going to get when one cannot afford to drive to Tesco...

In the UK one cannot to defend oneself and family from attack or ones property from theft without falling victim of the "justice system". Tony Martin anyone? Gangs are rife already, in a Mad Max scenario its not a great leap to see a lot of rape and killing going on. Unlikely I know, but who knows what black swans the future may hold?

The government is near insolvent, and cannot afford to maintain services or stop taxing the population at an eye-popping rate. The brain-drain is real, if you tax me too much I will move my business elsewhere, and so will many others. House prices in the UK have a long long way to fall to be comparable to mainland Europe: in Germany I can buy a smallholding with a fabulous 5 bed house, commutable to Hamburg with several acres of land for the price of a 4 bed noddy house with a postage stamp garden in Swindon. This is going to contribute to serious further problems for UK banks in future.

The country relies on and is in thrall to the financial services industry. Recent history makes one doubt its continued viability at current levels in an energy constrained environment. Quantitative Easing is a sure sign the system is under intolerable strain.

The apparatus of government has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The parliamentary expenses scandal has, I think, permanently damaged respect for Parliament. Britain has grossly incompetent politicians who frankly would disgrace a banana republic. Look after number one is the rule of the UK, and don't the politicians do it well. Don't plan on go looking for saviours or longterm energy planning there.

Parliament has already enshrined in law all the powers they need to create a totalitarian state. As soon as I was made aware of the powers created with Civil Contingencies Act 2004, Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and SOCPA I knew I had to leave. Basically as a UK subject you have effectively no rights under the law, because any protection of law you may assert can be legislated out of existence at the whim of a minister under the 2006 act. That is a recipe for a police state. Hitler had to pass the Enabling Act of 1933 (the Ermächtigungsgesetz), precisely to be able to do what the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 does. The 1933 Act established his dictatorship and is a key moment in the slide towards the Holocaust. As it stands, no Enabling Act is currently required by a would be UK Hitler: all the powers are there on the statute books already.

As I see it, under increasing pressure from the depression that will result from the coming energy crisis, the UK will find its nascent police state blossoms into full blown Orwellian nightmare. Once shortages really hit, both the politicians and the underclass of the UK will hinder any positive change that one might wish to make as a community or as an individual.

The large unintegrated immigrant communities are going to provide endless racial tensions in future and plenty of home-grown terrorism.

We have made enemies of a great many countries and peoples. Surely London is one of the most likely cities in the world to get some instant nuclear sunshine from an Islamist. Frankly after Iraq, Afghanistan, one can see the islamist's point, and if I am saying that as a kuffir, that means a hell of a lot of angry young Muslims would love to press that button.

The UK is doomed doomed doomed. I would rather die than return to the miserable grey mess that exists there. I wish you well, but for the average man there are better places to live one's life, especially if one values liberty and sanity.

TW you're right that a lot of our driving is discretionary and might not be so hard to work around, but the price of oil will be felt in more than just the price of petrol. Production and distribution, particularly of food, are oil dependent so there will be general inflation at a time when incomes (not just those in the motor industry) are falling. House prices in car-dependent areas will plummet and your employment opportunities will decline according to how far you can realistically commute by bus or bike. Other fuels will be used to displace oil so they will become more expensive too. Winters will be unpleasant without 24/7 gas CH, and you won't be able to escape them by plane for a week in the sun. Thank heavens for the Gulf Stream (the real one, not the executive jet), or the UK really would be stuffed. I doubt we will revert to the stone age but we will certainly revert to the 1950s and I expect our grandchildren's horizons will be commensurately narrower than ours.

In practice, it is both. Government standards now require 13 SEER air conditioners, though people could choose to buy ones up to 23 SEER (or more via geothermal).

Automobiles now must meet more stringent CAFE requirements, though each owner individually has a choice to which they want, depending upon that year's remaining inventory and price.

Most locales that are not primarily distant rural ones have minimum R-values for walls, windows, ceilings, etc. The builder (or owner) can decide to do more if they choose.

dohboi - Interesting. "We need to get away from measuring everything with dollars." And exactly what are you willing to convert the dollars in your paycheck to? How are you going to grow your own food if you don't have the money to buy your seed? Are you going to take someone's land away from them? You going to mail the county a basket of corn to pay your property tax?

IMHO feeding folks will be the least of our problems. At least for those of us in more rural states like Texas. New York City is going to have a bigger problem. The problem I was highlighting wasn't just feeding folks. If PO reduces the working ranks as much as I suspect it will the question won't be feeding those folks but: who's going to pay their rent...for the utilitites...for their medical bills...for their education? The easy answer is the gov't. And how is the gov't going to carry all that additional burden in the face of declining taxes? Print more money? Many economists don't see that as a long term solution.

My very simple point: when X millions become unemployed due to the reduction in our fuel consumption what will their existance look like? Again just my WAG but I doubt feeding themselves will be the major problem.

Most people will rediscover truly fuel efficient cars that are not hybrids. Fiat has super-tuned a 2-cylinder gasoline engine that produces 85 HP and 107 ft.-lbs. torque at 1900 rpm. "The 0.9-liter two-cylinder motor features a pint-sized turbo, Fiat's revolutionary MultiAir technology and so much more. When dropped in the Fiat 500, the new engine performs better than the company's existing 1.2-liter mill and on par with its 1.4-liter while offering a 30-percent reduction in fuel consumption. When equipped with the new TwinAir, the Fiat 500 can reach a top speed of 108 miles per hour and can hit 60 mph in under 11 seconds. Fuel consumption works out to a handy 57 miles per gallon (U.S.) and emissions drops down to just 95 grams per kilometer of CO2. With max torque sitting at approximately 107 ft.-lbs. at a low 1900 rpm, this little mill figures to offer enough low-end grunt too." This car will be CHEAP and easy. The first year production target is 400 thousand units, but will likely triple within 2 years.

> if individual gasoline consumption goes down, money spend on gas now is freed

This was discussed at length here last year and the previous year. The consensus was that people cut back on nearly everything else before gasoline. People live in the suburbs and need to drive to just about everywhere: work, the shops, school, kids' activities, ... everywhere.

But, you say, US gasoline consumption has fallen, so people do cut back their usage when the price goes up. I did, after all.

Wrong. Or, at least, not how you think.

Leaving aside the kind of people who hang out on The Oil Drum, in the USA, a person's gas consumption drops when they are made unemployed. That is what has happened: lots of people are unemployed. That's why consumption has fallen.

Overall gasoline usage goes down when prices rise because some people drop out of the market, not because everybody cuts their use a little. OK, that's an overstatement -- unemployed people still use a little gasoline -- but it's more accurate than saying, "everyone cuts back a little", which is what people tend to think.

So you are right that there could be a cut in the trade deficit. But it won't be the oil that is cut first, it'll be everything else, including things made in the USA, like coffees, health insurance, and houses, as well as Walmart-stuff. The trade deficit will fall, but so will activity inside the USA. Since internal activity is about 85% of GDP, the effect will be bigger there.

The decline means more unemployment, and more, in a vicious circle. Less wages, less profits, less taxes, bigger deficits. A rational government would take on the debt now, employing people (indirectly) to electrify the railroads, retrofit insulation, and so on. The debt will happen anyway; taking it on now would help break the circle. (An enlightened government would also outlaw building density restrictions and free parking around shops and offices. That'd "nudge" cities in the direction of greater efficiency.)

Sadly, the US political elite is having one of its psychotic episodes just now. The chances of sensible policy are nil.

Over multiple years, people will adjust. Relatively wealthy people will buy more efficient vehicles. Poor people will double up with relatives to cut housing costs, and in decades to come most people will leave the suburbs and return to town centres. But it's not going to be smooth.

Well the guy basically has no idea what's he talking about...which ridicules the notion that he's a respected expert.

Shame on TOD for this garbage article.

Smil doesn't think that Peak Oil will force a faster pace.

Previous energy transitions were voluntary, so they were slow.

Sadly, we have so much coal that we could convert away from it slowly, just as Smil thinks. I hope he's wrong...

A few comments to the several of you who were kind enough to reply. Thanks for engaging! I've read most of Smil's books. I stumbled onto Hubbert's work in the 1960s and recognized then that his message was more important than my intended library quest. I knew the theory on population and resources before they were formulated into books such as The Population Bomb and Overshoot, so these were not revelatory. I bookmarked TOD in 2005 and have been reading since then, but only registered to comment when it appeared the Gulf oil spill threads needed more science input.

But here's the thing--the theory has all along predicted things that have not happened, so far at least. In science, when predictions from theory fail repeatedly, we are obligated to get better information and revise our core body of thinking. TOD is not the place for this, unfortunately--too much assuming the future will be like the past, not enough attention to the dynamics of change, not enough forward visioning.

Dividing into optimists and pessimists is a diversion IMO. My students are interested in understanding their prospects and what they should do, and they have to look away from TOD to find inspiration, ideas, and guidance on the latter. "You can't get there from here" may or may not be wrong, but it is certainly a channel-changer.

I'm nonetheless grateful for the strong attention TOD offers for the core understanding of our conditions and for the community of thinkers here. And I'll continue suggesting from time to time that there really may be a way forward.

(Now I'm off to simplify my EnergyQuest lecture to give to honors freshmen. I gave the long version to some wealthy NGO donors a couple weeks ago, and they are not talking to me right now!)

The bau guys have mostly been right in thier predictions of good times for my entire life

While some of us are not hurting badly now, many are. I consider the BAU guys to be people like Daniel Yergin, Michael Lynch, and CERA in general, for example;

"The bau guys have mostly been right in thier predictions of good times for my entire life;who am I to say that this guy who does this stuff for his living is wrong?"

You mean economists. People like these who are now saying they dont have a clue;

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03commission.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR201009...

...maybe he is simply depending on low demand...

True, oldfarmermac but there isn't any information there to determine how he arrived at those years. I question any time period other than the one for the plateau we have been experiencing since 05, because as the price increased from 05 through July 08 to 147 a barrel, there was every incentive for exporting countries to maximize returns. However, production only increased a small amount as the price hit 147 after years of plateau production. Westexas has posted on that many times and I have to agree.

The economy was humming - China was at double digit growth - construction in the US was raging - car sales were high, so why didn't oil producing countries bring more product to market? Fact is it was the first time they didn't. Why did oil always increase in production when demand increased, except the plateau period from 05 through 08?

If Maxwell knows something that he'd like to share to substantiate those years for his prediction, then by all means he should bring them forward. I'd love to hear about it as I'm sure many others here would as well. The reason he isn't backing it up with data is because he's basically a positive thinker. Peak oil is in the future and when it happens all will be fine because of our fine spirit to always meet challenges. That I've got to see. We just up and act strong and suddenly the whole problem of peak oil is behind us? Ok, sure, gotchya.

Personally I do think Maxwell is putting the peak a few years too late, but as I said, that is my personal opinion;I have no credentials as a businessman or scholar of energy

There are many peaks, so trying to claim some magical single point, is rather foolish.
{Might appeal to a sound-bite obsessed media}

For many OECD countries the peak is in the past, whilst China and India, are likely to peak after 2020, so the debate of 'which year' is academic.

More important, is how countries manage the tail, and that will causes relative shifts.

We may yet see Coal, which peaked a while ago everywhere but China, being forced to come in from the cold.
(and I count countries whose exports grew, going to china, as China)

Well, yes, I agree with all that.

But considering that the "theme" of this year's ASPO-USA conference is we're all going to die real soon!, I would say this disaster forecasting game is way out of control.

I was not surprised, because if you spend some time looking at peak oil, if you’re a reasonably intelligent person, you see that catastrophic things are going to happen to the world. We’re talking about major damage, major change in our civilization. Chaos, economic disaster, wars, all kinds of things that are, as I say, very complicated, non-linear.

Robert Hirsch

Some have clearly latched onto the theme "This lunatic thinks we won't peak for another seven years." But I think that was an insignificant point in the context of the overall message.

Point taken on some fronts there, but I caution against accepting the gist of what someone evidently very credible says, if the message is peak oil is not happening now. Arguments can be made both ways, but personally it seems an affront to keep putting off something into the future, that is happening now. Afterall, he's not saying peak plateau occurred on a slightly different timeline, he's different by 12 years! Many on TOD say the plateau began in 2005 and he says it will begin in 2017, that's 12 Years difference. And what worries me about that, is the notion of some problem being in the future is always greeted with less concern than a problem that is currently present. What if people say, "Well, Maxwell might be right. We'll really need to watch for that when we get closer to 2017." The attention span of most people is 1 day, so giving them a 2017 year, when we are probably already in a plateau and will descend from plateau in possibly 2012, 5 years before we even get to Maxwell's 2017 estimated date for the peak, seems so far off the mark its disturbing.

It's possible that by the time we get to 2017 we'll be post collapse several years.

But remarks like, "However, I also believe that humans are very resilient, and that we will eventually come through this." and subsequent sentences definitely give the impression that a few tweaks and a period of difficulty will eventually see us alright. They hardly point to the need to reinvent civilisation along very different lines from what we have today.

However, it's good that you've acknowledged that we need a very different society. I'm not optimistic that we'll get there very quickly; we, and our descendants, may live through very dark times for decades or centuries.

Yes, I was also one of the ones cautioning in 2005 against Mad Max scenarios by 2010. As you may have noticed, they haven't arrived -- although there were many predictions around here about imminent chaos.

Excellent, read and repeat.

It's hard manual labor out there and well, you know the story.

Sounds like a job for...Superman? Or illegal aliens. Como esta, spinning wrench?

Top 10 College Majors. Top 3: Business Admin, Psych, Nursing. Hmmm. "Sometimes a balanced checkbook is just a banana, Granny."

Thank you, sir. I enjoyed very much a lot of your comments about the BP blowout and occasionally wanted to engage with you about it; we have a lot in common I believe. I gave some thought to the surface casing being pressured below the wellhead on your well the other day, I trust that kind of disapated by the next morning? We're all a little jumpy about those kinds of things right now.

We do not have a Petroleum Club in the little town I live in and there are no oil men to speak to at the Whataburger; it would be nice to contribute my perspective as a small independent now and then. It is a smart crowd, looking at the big picture, but as you say stripper wells in this country will play a big role in our domestic supply future. Over the past 20 years some of my annual decline rates have not declined at all and the implications of that are significant. Sometimes bigger is not always better and slow is steady is the ticket.

You and I grew up believing that recoverable reserves in the the US were for the most part price sensitive...the higher the price the higher the EUR, the longer it would be that we survived the cancer. I fear that is no longer true and extenuating circumstances will be the end of us, not low prices.

After watching Mad Max 2 last night on the TV this morning I made my pumpers put barbed wire and broken sample jars around all my 57's, just in case. And you are right, its the 22nd and run checks are here. Thank God!!

that money is a symbolic thing, ... That's pretty basic.

So, you're suggesting ... we'll face a decline in the value ?
Perhaps because of PO?

It's not merely that money is a symbolic thing.

It's more so that each of us has the magical power to create the "money" stuff out of thin air ... and we do so ... everyday.

In my example, at the moment I wrote Hector a personal check (or a corporate check), the cash money did not have to exist. The "cash value" merely had to get to the bank before Hector gets to the bank and gets the clearing process for the check going.

If I give Hector the check Friday evening after bank business hours and the bank is closed over the weekend, that's 48 hours over which I could personally create "money" and not have to cover for its "value". It's purely a "promise" more than anything else. Same thing with the credit card. I don't have to make good on the symbolic "cash value" until the statement from the credit card company comes in --maybe a month later.

But there is much more to the story. The possession in Hector's hand of the symbolic "cash value" does not mean that our society has to make good on it's decoupled "promise" to Hector at that same moment on the conversion of the symbolic "cash value" into something real.

That only happens when Hector presents the symbolic "cash value" to some 3rd party and "they" provide the real thing --or fool Hector into believing they have provided the "real thing".

Let's say Hector decides to be "financially prudent" and invest the symbolic "cash value" by buying some Wall Street paper --say a stock, or even something fuzzier like a credit default option.

Do you see where this is going?

The hollow "promises" made by society not only "can" ... but do often stretch into the millions, billions or trillions of dollars and into the far away future.

It is, ---as Stoneleigh suggests----, potentially a giant Ponzi scheme that appears to be working only as long as society can pretend to be providing actual "growth" in wealth in the far away future.

(Don't worry, "we" will somehow "muddle" through the far away future problems. "They" will come up with something or other.)

When you buy a new shiny car from Detroit, society is making you an implicit promise that 5 years down the line (as your payments are being finished off), there will still be affordable gasoline for running that thing ... so that you are getting the promised "value" of what you paid cash money for.

A reneg on that promise does not have to come as a slow "decline".

It can arrive as a sudden and catastrophic collapse.

____________________________
click on image above for more info