A brief history of oil production peaks

Oklahoma peaked in 1927 at about 700,000 BOPD; now it is 167,000 BOPD.
The US peaked in 1970 at 9.66 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 5.43 million BOPD.
Libya peaked in 1970 at 3.32 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 1.54 million BOPD.
Kuwait peaked in 1972 at 3.28 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 2.34 million BOPD.
Iran peaked in 1974 at 6.03 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 3.93 million BOPD.
Saudi Arabia peaked in 1981 at 9.64 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.86 million BOPD.
Russia peaked in 1983 at about 11.5 million BOPD; in 2004 it was 8.88 million BOPD.
Alaska peaked in 1988 at 2.14 million BOPD; now it is 968,000 BOPD.

The following countries' oil production was at an all-time high in 2004:

China (3.49 million BOPD)
Mexico (3.38 million BOPD)
Canada (2.42 million BOPD)
United Arab Emirates (2.36 million BOPD)
Nigeria (2.34 million BOPD)
Kazakhstan (999,000 BOPD)
Angola (985,000 BOPD)
Malaysia (859,000 BOPD)
Qatar (783,000 BOPD

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13523559,00.html

Well... lets take a wild guess.

You are looking into the future and these are alternative scenarios. In order to codify some kind of short hand for future scenarios, may I respectfully suggest we  harden our options. I welcome any other handles or alternatives or other possible scenarios.

1. THE JETSONS - A cornucopean, hi-tech vision of our future based a new , unlimited source of energy and personalised transport.

2. HOBBITON - A heavenly vision of rustic charm, real ale and copious amounts of food with relatively little back breaking work in the fields. This scenario is basically 1) but low tech and with hairy feet.

3. MAD MAX - A disorganised, chaotic dystopia of brigandage along Hobbesian lines.

4. 1984 - An organised, regimented dystopia with extreme social control, propaganda, torture and chemical coshes.

5. THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR - Just get it for us. Now.

6. SHOGUN - Pretty self sufficient. Excellent news for those allowed to wear Katana, Not too hot if you are one of the night soil collectors.

With  small pieces of  ag land stranded by zoning you may wind up with a much shorter commute - good idea in these times. Up here in Western Wash ag land leases for  about $350/acre/year.

Be sure to inquire about water rights.

A 5 acre plot in Pescadero (a charming peak oil ready village about 1 mile from the beach and surrounded by farmland and redwoods) on Pescadero Creek in rural San Mateo county is about US$300,000.  I was going to relocate my home from San Jose to Pescadero last year.  Then I realized that it would be more prudent to leave the US entirely.

PS:  Strongly advise not living in San Francisco itself.  The SF Bay military bases were gradually closed over the past several years.  Then Jeb Bush was heard to joke at a Florida GOP meeting that San Franciscans were an endangered species.  Make of that what you will.  But Livermore Lab has taken delivery of vehicles with gatling guns, and Camp Parks has been refurbished as an emergency detention centre, presumably for unruly San Franciscans.

Don't take such comments too much to heart.

I think what we're contending with here is a desperate attempt by some people to latch onto anything that will give them hope about the future of energy in the US; and you are viewed as the guy who dropped a turd in the punch bowl.  A certain faction desperately wants ethanol from corn to be a viable option and has upmost scorn for those who logically demonstrate its serious shortcomings.

You are a spoil sport; you have taken away their hope; and they hate you for it.

You are the crazy person, the only one who can't see the emperor's new clothes.

For shame on you!

Didn't I read something somewhere about comparative advantage?

Invective, tirades, diatribes, or <unacknowledged> rants don't us help much. [Self-aware rants can be cathartic and fun.] Personally, I'd suggest not engaging once it's obvious there is no point. I understand that the ad hominem is a classic fallacy, but I'm not convinced the underlying logic is always wrong. Sometimes the problem is the messenger more than the argument. If you read a post, and the word "bozo" comes to mind, there's probably not much point in reacting.

Let's face facts. You're not only a shill for the oil companies, you are Dick Cheney's personal bitch, correct?

Tell us, what does the inside of his underground lair look like?

Best,

Matt

Something to consider: there are lots and lots of people who are going to acquire either social and/or financial capital from things like ethanol. Or those that hope to. The best way for them to do this is to paint it as being WAY better than it is. That gets the rubes excited and ready to fork over money or attention. After all nobody is going to get that excited over something that promises to help only a little. No, they get excited over something that is going to let the suburban drive through shangrla of eternal shopping continue forever!!! So the biofuel advocate has a deep-rooted incentive to dramatically overestimate how much biofuel can help. In most cases they sincerely believe what they are saying. It's "Machiavellian self-deception" at its finest.

The reason they react so virulently to you is because you are bursting their inclusive fitness bubble, or at least the one they are hoping to build.

Basically, it's not facts your arguing over with them. It's "hey, this biofuel stuff is my ticket I'm gonna be rich and score with the hot babes!" from them and "sorry, but it ain't, here are the facts, let's stop the bullshit" from you.

Best,

Matt

My mother taught me that everything one says should either be meaningful, or funny. Your posts are always coherent and I already know your background as a chemical engineer so I read and learn from every one of them. Not everyones posts carry the same weight, and I as a free citizen of the internet who is already strained by the complex time contstraints of society can choose how I spend my TOD reading time effectively.  

Bottom line. It was informative for you to voice your frustration above, but please dont take it personally. None of us ever can nor should please everyone with what we say and think. Keep up your integrous commentary and we want more turkey photos.
TLS-

Do you work for any oil company. I have read your material and would like to know its real and not just some propaganda from the oil company's point of view.. I am staking my reputation upon your answer..

Nice thing about science-and even engineering- right will out.  Just let it.

First off, I went to his site, permaculture.com and tried to buy his book, but it turns out that even though he "produced a PBS series" twenty years ago, which was "killed by Mobil Oil", he still didnt' actually have the book he advertised. Instead, he was soliciting contributions of up to $100 to help him "self publish" it.

FOr someone who made "$100,000" an acre growing crops (marijuana?), surely he can afford to self publish his own book. Or take subscriptions and have it paid for. But it reeks of his milking people to help support him while he writes it. And as anyone who has tried to write a book knows, that can take forever.

I want to thank RR for challenging this font of potential misinformation.

Still, RR, I have to agree with above comments that you shouldn't take it too personally.

Yours,

jim burke

Fuelaholic: I think a challenge should only come from someone who is qualified to make it.  Engineer Poet comes to mind.  He doesn't appear to have allegiances to his employer that cloud his vision, prompting numerous ad hominem attacks against me and Blume and Stryker.

It's been a couple of minutes since I read that and started laughing out loud.  I'm still snickering.

I have an invitation for him:  read them and weep.

The Indians did not, unlike us, depend very much on things they dug (or pumped) deep out of the ground. Most stuff deep in the ground doesn't renew in meaningful periods of time. Biological stuff on the top can and does if nothing else messes it up. In the long run we are going to be a lot more dependent on what above-ground biology can do for us than on underground resources which are depleting.

That's why the sludge dumps and all the other above-ground devastation is so tragic. The one thing we can't do without is the topsoil and the above-ground ecology. Not that it won't renew more quickly than the underground stuff (like, the oil will take millions of years to come back, if ever) -- but it could be  rough for a few hundreds of years.

Of course, if you're the patient type, then it's not a big deal.

Humanure is NOT nightsoil. Jenkin's book "The Humanure Handbook" is not only a highly entertaining read, it also has a chapter on composting that makes every other composting book irrelevant.

I would like to draw your attention to an Australian blog called The Soil & Health library which has pdf copies of out-of-print aggie classics, including Walter Lowdermilk's "Conquest of the Land through Seven Thousand Years."

Loudermilk, a top Soil Conservation Service scientist in the  early 20th C., went around the world looking at what remained of the soils of the classic civilizations, and gives a very convincing argument that topsoil loss was directly responsible for the collapse of each of them.

The key thought is that farms might lose the thickness of a dime of topsoil per year or decade, but over decades, centuries or millennia, these loses mount, until the land is no longer productive.

Also, he points out that as long as the soil remains intact, any civilization which collapses or is conquered will quickly spring back under new ownership. The only reason for lands to become uninhabitable is soil depletion, and soil really is the basis for all civilizations.

Those interested in Amish technology should check out Lehman's which is the hardware store for the Amish. We got a lot of our "technology" there, including a hand powered washing machine that requires no fossil fuels.  

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today announced aggressive new plans that will help wean America off its dangerous and costly dependence on foreign oil while giving America's drivers access to more ethanol and biodiesel at fuel pumps. Harkin's plan provides a comprehensive approach to boost ethanol and biodiesel use through a much higher renewable fuels standard (RFS), far greater availability of E85 pumps and would ensure that nearly every new vehicle sold in the United States is flex-fuel within 10 years.

http://harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=255442

He is utilizing Argonne accounting rules, which apparently aren't used for ethanol accounting.

RR

For example the EROEI of a solar panel is just 1:7, but the input energy (sunlight) is free and abundunt. If you compare it to the EROEI of ethanol (say 2:1) you may end up with rejecting solar panels in favor of ethanol. I think the EROEI concept should be used only when the inputs are of comparable quality with the output. It can help clearing some disturburances in the market price like for example a temporary glut/shortages, taxes, subsidies etc.

Well, what you are getting into is what is sometimes called the 'form value' of the energy.  A BTU in the form of natural gas has a greater form value than a BTU in the form of coal.  Likewise, a BTU in the form of electricity has a great form value than a BTU of natural gas. Yes, the form value of energy is an important consideration when discussing how the energy is ulitmately used, e.g., I can't very easliy light my house with a lump of coal but I can easily do it by plugging in my electical outlet.

That being said, considerations of form value cannot get around the simple fact that a BTU is still a BTU regardless of form it is in. So, when we get down to considerations of primary energy supplies EROEI is of vital importance. For example, if ethanol from corn has an EROEI not much above unity, it cannot legitimately be veiwed so much as an energy SOURCE, but rather as a more convenient energy FORM. The more extreme example would be making flashlight batteries. The batteries are obviously not an energy source, just a conventient energy form.

I also think it could be argued that the concept of EROEI doesn't even apply to electrical generation because that is actually a downstream use of the primary energy source, e.i., coal or natural gas.

So,  what I'm really driving at is that neither EROEI nor energy form value tell the whole story. Often, the two must be considered together. Tolerating a low EROEI for convenience of use may be justified in many cases, but NOT when it comes to producing a primary energy source, for doing so only results in thermodynamically going around in circles of ever decreasing radii.

 we allready turned that corner m8...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with (a principal argument Kuhn uses to reject Karl Popper's model of falsifiability as the key force involved in scientific change). Rather, according to Kuhn, anomalies have various levels of significance to the practitioners of science at the time. To put it in the context of early 20th century physics, some scientists found the problems with calculating Mercury's perihelion more troubling than the Michelson-Morley experiment results, and some the other way around. Kuhn's model of scientific change differs here, and in many places, from that of the logical positivists in that it puts an enhanced emphasis on the individual humans involved as scientists, rather than abstracting science into a purely logical or philosophical venture.

When enough significant anomalies have accrued against a current paradigm, the scientific discipline is thrown into a state of crisis, according to Kuhn. During this crisis, new ideas, perhaps ones previously discarded, are tried. Eventually a new paradigm is formed, which gains its own new followers, and an intellectual "battle" takes place between the followers of the new paradigm and the hold-outs of the old paradigm. Again, for early 20th century physics, the transition between the Maxwellian electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview was not instantaneous nor calm, and instead involved a protracted set of "attacks," both with empirical data as well as rhetorical or philosophical arguments, by both sides, with the Einsteinian theory winning out in the long-run. Again, the weighing of evidence and importance of new data was fit through the human sieve: some scientists found the simplicity of Einstein's equations to be most compelling, while some found them more complicated than the notion of Maxwell's aether which they banished. Some found Eddington's photographs of light bending around the sun to be compelling, some questioned their accuracy and meaning. Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn pointed out, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

After a given discipline has changed from one paradigm to another, this is called, in Kuhn's terminology, a scientific revolution or a paradigm shift. It is often this final conclusion, the result of the long process, that is meant when the term paradigm shift is used colloquially: simply the (often radical) change of worldview, without reference to the specificities of Kuhn's historical argument.

The comment of Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." is one that strikes me in particular.  When I was in graduate school, I studied quantum mechanics from a professor who himself had done his graduate work in Paris.  At that time quantum mechanics itself was quite controversial, and he had to study this subject from professors in the department of mathematics because the physics professors of the day refused to admit that quantum mechanics had any validity.

He also wants to give incentives to women to have more children:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060510/47919632.html
because of Russia's well known demographic problem:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060510/47930949.html
He'll also need big bucks to update the Russian nuclear arsenal:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060510/47918229.html

RiaNovosti is a fun news source - clearly an organ of the Kremlin to get certain viewpoints out, but at least they are not like Pravda (and its creative fiction) or the AsianTimes which some people here like to quote.    RiaNovosti is on my shortlist of web sites to check when I see other media making comments about what Putin reportedly said (or did not say), just to see what indeed was supposed to be said.

BTW, regarding an oil exchange using rubles... they are aware of one of the possible negative side effects of a strengthening ruble:
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060511/48006961.html

I also saw that "The Sopranos" star James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) was hit by a NYC cab, while riding his scooter, late last week.  One can only hope that the US roads become a bit more hospitable to scooters in the times ahead.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/05/entertainment/main1590448.shtml?source=RSS&attr=Entert ainment_1590448

You know, running over a real mobster probably would not be the smartest thing to do.

Cliffman's link prevents others from rating the article, since it is his already-rated hyperlink.