The strapline is supposed to read "Peak Oil - Where do you stand", rather than "Peak Oil - Overhyped alarmism" which was the first choice on the poll..

I thought it would be a (vaguely) good idea to see where people stand on this issue and the likely mix of the board, although I can guess that most will be 'bears'..

Hopefully any discussion around peak oil, likelyhood, timing, implications etc. will be a good deal more measured than some on HPC and we will get a few with anti-peak oil views that stick around to make the debates more interesting.

For my 2p worth, I think peak oil and the coming energy crisis will be the defining issue of the next half century, most likely resulting in large or full scale resource wars and a radically different world once played out.

GW-Bush want the price of Oil to go up becuse he makes even more money from his Saudi Royal connections.

Take away petradolars and americia is done for

I voted for "I'm a Peak Oil bear. This has the potential to take down our civilisation", simply because it is true. Sooner or later, the oil runs out, and I'm siding on sooner because of the lack of major finds and the fact that you can't really trust the "reserves" figures given by any of the major oil producing nations. Alternatives need to be found quickly to make this a peaceful transition.

Well I voted "I don't know" not because I don't think it has the potential to bring down civilisation, but because I am not convinced it is entirely technology that will solve the situation. I still believe that their has to be an end to madness before sanity prevails. The crazy lack of consciousness over consuming has to have something to do with it. Either reduce consumption or birdflu might do it for us!

I'm a peak oil bear.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

"I'm a Peak Oil bear. This has the potential to take down our civilisation"

I voted this, but it exaggerates my view.
I think Peak Oil will change our economy substantially, and the way we use energy. I expect peopel to drive less, drive smaller cars, with many ditching them altogether, and eventually we may organise more of our cities around public transport.

That may actually be a good thing in many ways, because we have surrendered troo much space, and too mcuh importance in our lives to automobiles. IMO, communities would provide better quality of life, if they were organised around pedestrians and street life. How many of you can think of a single tourist attraction that you would like to visit again which has automobiles at its core. Areas where pedestrians rather than cars are in control, are the areas most of us want to be.

a 'don't know' here, as I don't have much background on this.

Stock conservation will help, but will only delay the inevitable. This is the US army's take:

http://www.energybulletin.net/13737.html

The interesting/scary part is:


Another point is that oil isn't used just for energy. Plastics, synthetic fibres, detergents, synthetic vitamins, cosmetics and paint are all oil based. There must be scope for recycling existing products, or new ways of synthesizing them, but all will certainly require net input of energy. Plastic carrier bags to become a thing of the past?

TLM

Am keen to see if oil bears and oil bulls scrap it out on here as vehemently as they do on HPC.

Y.
haha.
Do we really need that here? I think not.
But there seems to be something about the web that encourages verbal battles.
I just hope we can keep it on a friendly, and collegial basis here

No, I dont think there's any chance of that. When it comes to peak oil it will (or wont) affect almost all of us in the same way. It'd be a fair question 20 years in the future though if millions have had the chance to fill 1000 gallon tanks with petrol.

It seems to me that as oil gets more expensive then there will be money to be made out of alternative energy sources. So they will be developed. It hasn't happened a lot to date because oil has been readily available and hasn't cost enough to make a business out of alternatives - or at least enough of one. This will change going forward and there may be some short term economic fallout as the adjustment is made. I don't think oil running out will bring our western civilisation crashing down however, we'll just use something else or change our behaviour as appropriate.

Society may change along the way. Working from home rather than commuting may well become the norm for office workers. Commuting becoming too expensive will just change the way we do things for example. The work and hence the economic activity will still continue.

If travel becomes too expensive we'll just do less of it, and spend more time in our local communites. This was normal a 100 years ago.

I think increases in energy prices will have the effects of extremely regressive taxation. As with house prices, the least well off will be hurt the most.

I don't think the debate here will be so bitter because there is not the same kind of inter-generational equity issue. Our current wasteful consumption of fossil fuels deprives future generations of a valuable resource but price increases impact on every age group.


I voted bear as usual

"I don't think the debate here will be so bitter because there is not the same kind of inter-generational equity issue"

An interesting point.
Also less devisive because an opinion about the property market is often taken as a threat by someone who holds an opposite opinion. In reality, I dont think it is the case, but Bulls seem to feel threatened when the Bear case is articulated- as if it could matter- but does it?

I don't think that people who think there is NO PEAK OIL crisis feel particularly threatened by those sho disagree. At least not yet. When a political agenda builds around this view, as it may do, that may changed

What about the big auto museum in Munich? I've never been, but I've heard it's quite something. There is also the National Museum at Beaulieu in the New Forest, very well worth the trip. I'm not a fan of mass mobility either, but do like cars of before about 1980. After that they became too globalised and boring. Nowadays they are all Volvos, or worse.

Peak Oil should not take down our civilization, but I suspect it will knock the West off the top slot over the next thirty years. US and UK will sink into financial and banking crises. Our individualistic, undisciplined cultures are not compatible with the collective restraint and national focus/organisation that will be needed to deal with shortages. The basic problem is that the masses are absolutely clueless and the executives don't have the courage to admit the issue or the quality to lead us through it.

Already US drivers are getting violent at gas stations. Look at the fuel tax protests in this country. That's a foretaste of what is coming. Cars are such cherished fetish objects that people will feel degraded when they can't use them. That will be dangerous.

I like Old cars.

And internal combustion cars themselves,
may only be found in a museum in 20 years time

I would not want to tempt fate, but it is a surprise that so far there has been no repeat of the fuel tax protests of 2000, despite the rise in prices at the pump. Can't be long in coming if the oil price stays this high or goes further. £1($1.80) a litre, can't imagine US drivers paying that, even with a devalued dollar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4221296.stm

I was also wondering why we hadn't had a reprise of these demonstrations. The only reason that I came up with is that those that can genuinely afford it will just keep on paying. I do quite low mileage, so petrol prices at the pump could double from what they are now without really worrying me unduly, (affects on CPI could obviously be another matter, though).

However, it's possible that those individuals, that might protest may be so up to their eyeballs in debt, anyway, that any fuel increase is just rolled up into their current new loan/overdraft/MEW/credit card, and is just absorbed, unless all these energy rises hit a critical level, or IRs are hiked.

It seems that anyone these days can afford pretty much anything if they are prepared to sell their souls and borrow beyond their limit. A bank credit squeeze will affect this, but will probably hurt people in other ways (can't use one loan to pay off another, etc), before they even notice the fuel inflation. This is why IMO, that even a small IR hike could have quite a devastating impact. Anyone else got any views on this?

TLM

I hate cars and wish I didn't have to own one, but I live in a rural area, and wouldn't want to live in the city. Society is built around everyone using a car so it is very hard not to. I am really looking forward to things changing so I can ditch the car.

The other thing I am suprised no one has mentioned is the implications for food production. I believe that ammonia, extracted from oil, is extensively used as fertilizer on crops to increase production. As the price of oil goes up, so will the price of food, and when it runs out, production will drop. This is especially worrying as the global population is still rising.

Surely there's got to be better ways of producing ammonia than from oil. It's a natural waste product.

Ok i was wrong the ammonia is from natural gas not oil. See here

This article also makes the point that there are other ways of obtaining ammonia, so this isn't really such as big issue as some people make out. I think there could still some cost implications though.

It's the cost implications that are the point. Peak Oil does not mean we run out of oil, it means we have to pay more and more yet we will slowly get less and less in return.

It's a bit like riding a bicycle. Going downhill with the wind behind you you are laughing and you can carry a couple of passengers no problem, but when the road turns up and the wind swings against you then no matter how hard you work you can't keep up the pace you had. You have to sling off the passengers and just to keep moving at all you really have to sweat.

It is surprisingly difficult to get this point across to a society conditioned to believe that oil is either cheap and plentiful or else it is "running out". We will never run out of oil, but the days of downhill and tailwinds do appear to be over. The possibility of die-off comes about not because there is not enough to go around, but because under threat societies will close in on themselves and act with blind selfishness. Look at the world today - there is more than enough of everything to go around to satisfy basic needs but nonetheless 80% of humanity leads a hard life utterly alien to the 20% who live within the comfort zone created by knowledge and cheap energy.

I have a suspicion that knowledge and cheap energy go hand in hand. The cheaper energy is, the more complex a society can be, the greater the sophistication of products and experiences and hence the higher the educational aspiration. But if energy gets expensive, then the division of labour unwinds and there is a reduction in sophistication and hence a reduction in knowledge. How many people in the world could build a PC from basic materials? Nobody can, because the PC you are using is the product of effort and knowledge by thousands of strangers who know nothing of each other and each contributes but one page of a very thick book. Provided the system holds together, all well and good, but should there be major disruptions, this could lead to knowledge disconnects that accumulate to a decline in technical competence.

Or, to put it another way, there is a very great amount of informal knowledge in the world that exists only because of the habit of people going to work each day in specialisms and using it. But if their work was interrupted for any length of time, that habit of knowledge would disappear, because people would forget, and so little of it is written down.

The dangers of Peak Oil are very subtle, but extend so deep into our society that in fact the chronic impact could be profound.

There are some interesting production charts posted on this new thread at PeakOil.com:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic20921-0.html

Basically these are IEA data. They show that global production has not changed in the last couple of years and that there is a "rolling over the top" tendency to the trend. 2007 would see a fall in production if the trend continues.

On the other hand, the CEO of TOTAL has predicted PO not until about 2020 or even later if global demand can be restrained.

Make your own mind up. I have come to follow this principle: that whatever the experts say, no matter how highly qualified they appear to be, it's what actually happens that counts. I'd say the message in the actual data is disturbing, to put it mildly. Equally, it could just be a dip or shelf whilst new projects are brought on line.

We shall just have to wait and see.

This is from Money Morning. They better find those new projects fast.



The International Energy Agency projects global demand for crude oil will reach 121 million barrels a day by 2030. That's a 47.5% increase from today's level. But even if such a level of production could be reached, it would only be at much higher prices.

There is virtually no spare capacity in global oil production as it is. Now Chinese demand is forecast to double, while US demand grows a further 25%. With demand already so close to exceeding supply, would you bet a 4x4 jeep on oil trading at $70 per barrel 25 years from now?

We're clearly at one of those points in history where we extrapolate ahead and our vision does not make sense. The world will never produce 120 mb/d of oil, that much has been made clear by analysts and is clear enough to even one with superficial knowledge of the industry.

I am reminded of Victorians who projected that London would be buried under so many feet of horse manure by 1920 if then current traffic increases were to happen. We're in the same sort of position now, but none of us can figure how our consumer lifestyle can spread to billions more people.

Obviously it can't. The energy crisis is primarily political rather than technical. There would be more than enough fossil fuels IF WE USED THEM EFFECTIVELY. The current model of society is consumer anarchy, with governments having little real authority to control the indulgent whims of the fatted masses. This is why there is so much waste. If you want to kill a child pedestrian, our society has little real objection provided a motor car is used. I would suggest that the innovation will be a change to some kind of authoritarian rule that constrains indulgence. This has to be the case for reasons that go beyond oil depletion. We can't build all the airports to satisfy the demand for budget holidays, and we can't build all the roads to satisfy how much the kids want to drive.

Maybe people will rediscover how useful the bicycle + train or bus combination can be. Or they will accept driving quite small and efficient cars (which would be a lot more fun than current "safe" cars anyway). There is no magic energy solution to move on to.

Maybe we are dumber than yeast....

No6,
Those are huge rates of growth.
If the oil does materialise what will fill its place? Coal? Uranium? Something new?

Or will we need to learn to live with much less energy?

- -

SOME BELIEVE in Magic and/or Hidden Reserves

(this is from a GEI advert):
There are 71 billion barrels of oil waiting to be discovered in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico... There are another 85 billion barrels off the coast of West Africa... And the waters that surround the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea could hold as many as 300 billion barrels... But the greatest secret of all is how much oil lies – untapped – beneath U.S. soil. You'll be amazed when you see the numbers.

Even better, I want to show you which companies are drilling this oil – so you can get there first. It's all there in my free report, The Oil Story No One's Telling.

@: http://www.dailywealth.com/signups/SDW_oil...CFScJFQod2mY07w

-goes on, with some intriguing comments-

In recent weeks, for example, DailyWealth readers learned:

+ Why natural gas is much cheaper than oil right now... and the best stock to play it.

+ Why timber has been the best-performing asset of the past 40 years... and how ordinary people are taking advantage of timber investments right now.

+ Where to find the best CD rates in the entire world, paying over 8%.

+ A unique way to own gold and silver that could double your money in the next few years.

Why water might be one of the best investments for the next decade, and the best way to make an investment right now.

MAYBE I will have a look one day

I voted for 'it has the potential to take down our civilisation' because it does.


Doesnt mean that it will...

It definately has the potential to take the whole planet into utter chaos.

Without a major flu or other pandemic we are just too overpopulated to feed ourselves without oil.

Daniel Yergin Day - was declared by this Blog when Oil broke $75:

In a column in Forbes Magazine, published on 11/1/04, Daniel Yergin, in response to a question about the future direction of oil prices, dismissed concerns about oil supplies and asserted that oil prices on 11/1/05 would at $38 per barrel. Note that oil prices exceeded $60 in the summer of 2005, prior to the hurricanes.

In my opinion, Mr. Yergin serves as an excellent symbol of the major oil company/major oil exporter/energy analyst group. And since oil prices are now trading at close to $76 per barrel--twice Mr. Yergin's prediction--I hereby designate July 13, 2006 as "Daniel Yergin Day," in honor of Mr. Yergin's continued efforts to, in effect, persuade Americans to continue driving large debt financed vehicles, on long commutes to and from large mortgages.

One of the little ironies about the Peak Oil debate is that it is those who are trying their best to warn Americans about the dangers posed by Peak Oil---Matt Simmons; Colin Campbell; Kenneth Deffeyes; Boone Pickens, Jim Kunstler etc.--who are most often blamed for rising oil prices. I think that it is just the opposite.

If you believe Matt Simmons, et al, about the future direction of energy prices, you will drastically reduce your overall consumption, especially your energy consumption, by living in a small energy efficient home, close to where you work--which would ideally allow you to walk or take mass transit to work, or at least result in a short commute.

In my opinion, it is those who are telling us that Peak Oil is decades away--such as ExxonMobil, Opec and Yergin--who are most responsible for, in effect, encouraging Americans to continue driving $50,000 SUV's on 50 mile roundtrips to and from $500,000 mortgages in the suburbs.

My personal take on this issue is that we have to kill consumption--via a large tax on energy consumption, offset by tax cuts elsewhere--before consumption kills us.

Jeffrey J. Brown is an independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area. e-mail: westexas@aol.com

@: http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/

My view is peak oil is years away as demand will fall especially as hard tie will push people towards efficent cars e.g. like 1970's.
Long term we'll find new energy resources e.g. Hydrogen with power from nuclear.

So I think the whole idea of peak oil is a scare tactic that environmentalists will cling to but in reality will not materialise.

Though i do expect oil to never be $35 a barrel ever again. In fact as the economy has survived $70 the producers will maintain this price level. I even expect supply reductions if we all hit a recession to maintain this price as the middle east countries want money/goods not a strong world economy.

PS The hotel islands in Dubai tells me a lot about oil being exchanged for real things not paper money.


quick additional:

I know that oil = food (my mate is a farmer and explained this to me)

7 barrels of oil = 1 ton of crops or similar.

If world population keeps growing oil demand will grow but i expect a major reduction in world population.

Some would agree with you. For instance Cambridge Energy Research Associates predict that supply will outpace demand for at least another decade:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...299&k=63352

On the other hand, Ali Bakhtiari, former Chief Advisor to the Iranian NOC, believes that oil supply will not grow much from where it is now and that we are already in the first stage of the crisis:

http://www.energybulletin.net/19180.html

The CERA conclusions are prpbably the upper end of their Monte Carlo type analysis, rather than the Expected Outcome. Its datasets are private, however, so not subject to audit by a wider body of experts. In effect US energy policy is being influenced by a private company's private information. Odd that.

I am a bit sceptical of CERA. They have a history of being too optimistic.

You should forget about the Hydrogen Economy, based on nuclear or renewables. It won't happen because the conversion processes are too expensive and inefficient and the Nat Gas needed to produce H2 otherwise will become scarce too. Plus you have distribution and safety issues. There is no replacement for cheap oil - period. There is no idea anywhere - not even a gleam in the eye of an inventor - that promises to replace the convenience and technical performance of cheap oil. It has been a remarkable gift and like locusts we have gorged. The only substitute for cheap oil is - not travelling. Develop an interest in gardening, reading, whatever.

Interestingly, the era of cheap oil may well return briefly in the next recession (which is likely to be a serious one in the West), but it won't last. We may be surprised by how rapidly oil prices go through the roof as we attampt to climb out of the other side of the recession, and find that the "peak" was actually "Twin Peak Oil".

Just keep your eyes peeled and don't let yourself get too set on any specific scenario. Any one of them could happen.

A major reduction in world population? What is going to cause this? War, poverty, famine and birth control have all had a go. So, we are waiting for a plague, pandemic, or war to go nuclear or biological? Or a major economic collapse resulting in social disorder, war and mass starvation the likes of which we have never seen before? So far, the human race has adapted and population growth continues.

A major reduction in world population?

COULD come from a decline in the fertlity rate - which is happening already

New to this forum so don't know if this video has been posted before.
I think its worth a look and so is Stephen Leeb's 'Oil Factor Book'
Watch through the adverts and hear some about 'Hydrogen Corporation'

The interviewer is a blast... a grade A ass.
http://www.thestreet.com/_top/video/execut...s/10301573.html

And there lies the conundrum...

How many decades can you get out of a biofuel crop field without resource to hydrocarbons for feedstock? One year perhaps.....

The soil alone will not support it for long, as we have seen from the massive depletion of minerals from our standard vegetable crops over the past century.

I'd be surprised if we are anywhere close to being strategically sufficent in farming these days, if there is a prolonged fuel shock we're in deep Shite.

Bloomberg article on Peak Oil

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=news

Is this concept now becoming main stream? If it is what effect is it likely to have on the market as investors hedge against it?

An interesting profile of a US Army article:

http://www.energybulletin.net/20008.html

Not exactly reassuring even if it is only half true!

“Without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East,”

This policy is about three thousand years old.

I e-mailed my local constituency MP to make her aware of the situation -
Message :
"Dear

I would like to draw your attention to the matter of Peak Oil which is
going to a be a problem that affects us all. A good explanation of the
scenario and effects are explained by the attached link. The conclusions
are somewhat lurid but I find it difficult to agree with any them.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I have done a lot of online research and I am of the opinion that Peak
Oil is either occuring now or will be certainly occuring sometime
within the next ten years. The recent quadrupling in oil prices would
continue as prices per barrel could reach $100/$200 a barrel. The world
would then go into the second great depression- at the moment I don't
believe there is anything that will bring us out of it. As it says on
the website the world's financial system is based on cheap oil and it
may collapse when it realises that oil is running out.

Alternative energy sources are currently nowhere near the level required
to be able to substitute for oil. I don't believe Bio-diesel is an
option as currently the return on energy invested is not good and
besides which the world needs food more than it needs fuel oil. The
Alaksan oil sands also look like an extremely poor substitute.

Would you not agree that problem dwarves all other problems that we are
facing as a country and a planet?

Without Oil & Gas we will not be able to support schools, hospitals, the
elderly , build houses or any of the basic functions that support
civilised life. Without oil I don't think the planet can support
anywhere near the current 6 billion inhabitants. In particular
fertilizer which is produced from Natural Gas is required to support the
current level of population. Ironically Peak Oil may reduce the effects
of global warming by reducing the amount of fossil fuels that we can
burn- although it may make things worse as countries may use coal to
produce petrol with increased emissions until that in turn runs out.

I believe that the Government and Opposition need to get together now to
take action immediately on this issue. Please could you let me know what
you are doing about this extremely grave situation? "

I got a reply saying she was on holiday - but a few weeks later I still hadn't got a reply so I followed up with :

"Any update on this? Since my e-mail a quick search on google news for Peak Oil displays the following headlines:

Peak-oil theory warns tank's almost empty
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...670-643,00.html
The Australian, Australia - 11 Aug 2006
FORGET pipeline problems in Alaska. The real elephant in the corner is "peak oil". This issue is in the same category as global warming - although there is a division of opinion as to whether or not it's real, it is probably prudent to assume the worse-case option

Crisis Overload: Peak Oil, Peak Grain and Peak Water
http://www.counterbias.com/710.html
CounterBias.com - 4 Aug 2006
... According to Christopher Brodie, a partner at UK-based commodities hedge fund Krom River, this tussle over grain adds a Hobson's choice to the Peak Oil dilemma ...

Peak oil and fragility of global oil supply
http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews.as...artid=255999417
Kuwait Times, Kuwait - 13 Aug 2006
... This involves the concept called "Peak Oil"-a shorthand way of describing a critical geological concept that you ignore at your peril. ...

BYE BYE PETROLEUM
http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2714
Corporate Watch News, UK - 17 Aug 2006
...Colin Campbell, honorary chairman of ASPO international, began the conference with a prediction that peak oil would bring a succession of price spikes followed by global recession. He warned that current financial structures would be threatened, as the power to control money shifts, and suggested that a new era of geopolitics would emerge, with energy rich Russia ascending while energy depleted US and Europe compete with China for finite resources...

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=22303
.....In May U.S. production fell 459,000 barrels a day year on year. In May U.K. production fell 292,000 barrels a day. Mexican data saw a 150,000 barrels a day slide and statistics from Norway saw a 226,000 barrel a day fall.
For 2006 as a whole production is down by 196,000 barrels a day in the U.K. and 503,000 barrels a day in the U.S., 229,000 barrels a day in Norway and by 24,000 barrels a day in Mexico.
French company Total [NYSE:TOT] saw production - which may well rise again it is true - fall 9% year on year. BP [NYSE:BP] said it will struggle to meet its targets for 2006, 4.2 million barrels a day despite 1 million barrels a day from its venture with TNK [OTCPK:TNKBF] in Russia. Shell [NYSE:RDS-B] produced more in 2003 than it does now and the only companies who have put on big production outside of Eni [NYSE:E] in Italy have done it by buying other companies, ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP], Chevron [NYSE:CVX] and so on.......

Those were just a few of the selection. I see that John Reid suggested that we are facing "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second world war," - we are but its Peak Oil that is threatening all of us far more than a handful of Islamic terrorists. Our prosperity, health, wealth and happiness has been based since the end of the nineteenth century on cheap oil - this is about to change and soon.

I see the current Government thinking of this is that Peak Oil is not before 2030. I seriously doubt this - Try somewhere between now and 2011-and in any case China and India's growing demand will ensure an unbridgeable supply gap well before then.
"John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Department has made of when global production of conventional crude oil will peak.
Malcolm Wicks: The Government's assessment of the remaining lifespan of global oil reserves is set out in the Energy White Paper 2003 "Our energy future--creating a low carbon economy". Paragraph 6.15 of the White Paper notes that "Globally, conventional oil reserves are sufficient to meet projected demand for around 30 years, although new discoveries will be needed to renew reserves. Together with nonconventional reserves such as oil shales and improvements in technology, there is the potential for oil reserves to last twice as long".

This is consistent with the latest assessment by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its 2004 World Energy Outlook. The IEA concludes that ". . . global production of conventional oil will not peak before 2030 if the necessary investments are made."

The Government remain committed to working with producers, consumers and the international community to improve the conditions for investment in the international oil sector, as well as implementing policies to maximise the economic recovery of the UK's own oil (and gas) reserves and to ease the UK economy away from power supplied primarily through fossil fuel supply. We are also supporting efforts to promote greater transparency in reporting of global oil reserves. "

One further piece of evidence that peak oil appears imminent. There is a website - theoildrum.com where various Geologists try to predict and analyse peak production. One thing they are concerned about is that all of the largest oil producers are starting to show declines

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/21/...3/1416#comments

I thought that it would be interesting to compare the decline since December in world crude + condensate production to the decline in production from the top 10 net oil exporters (based on the 2004 list of top exporters).

As of the May, 2006 EIA numbers, the world is down 1.3% since December, an annual decline rate of 3.1% per year, but the top 10 oil exporters are down 3.0%, an annual decline rate of 7.2%.

Note that consumption is growing quite rapidly in most of the exporting countries, and note that in most cases domestic consumption is satisfied before oil is exported. In the captioned article, I showed, using my "Export Land" model, how a 25% drop in oil production and a 20% increase in consumption (over a five year period) would lead to a 70% drop in net oil exports.

I estimate that net oil exports from the top exporters are probably down by 4% to 5% (over a five month period), an annual decline rate of as much as 12% per year, which suggests that exports from the top exporters are falling about three to four times faster than world oil production is falling

As I have been relentlessly pointing out, I think that we are looking at a series of bidding cycles for declining net oil export capacity, with the oil going to the high bidders and with the losers having to reduce consumption. Leanan, on The Oil Drum, has documented several case histories of poorer countries having to reduce consumption. Soon, the developed and rapidly developing countries will be bidding against each other, instead of bidding against regions like Africa

On a positive note (!) the biggest hopeful are recent development is advances in solar technology:

http://www.energybulletin.net/19262.html
We approach this news as current and former public electric utility executives, sympathetic with consumer and environmental concerns. South Africa and California technologies rely on the same alloy -- called CIGS (for copper-indium-gallium-selenide) -- deposited in an extremely thin layer on a flexible surface. Both companies claim that the technology reduces solar cell production costs by a factor of 4-5. That would bring the cost to or below that of delivered electricity in a large fraction of the world

I believe that it should shortly be mandatory that all new building developments should have as a minimum solar power for hot water tanks, and that by a certain date all new developments should also have photo-voltaic designed into them. Also any houses with gardens should have water butts to try and combat a) flooding and drought.

You may note I haven't mentioned global warming - although I think its a serious problem - mainly due to rising sea levels. However given the fact that the effects for the UK tends to along the lines of "Future balmy Mediterranean Climate will lead to more vineyards and olive trees and UK seaside resorts becoming top tourist destination" its not really a vote winner is it?"

Yesterday I got a reply:

"Thank you for your email about 'Peak Oil'; I share your concerns about the future of our oil supply. A broad energy mix with less reliance on oil and gas would be in the best interests of the UK and the global economy.

The Government are currently conducting an energy review to update their 2003 Energy White Paper. As you might be aware, the Conservative Party is also conducting an energy review which will be an evidence-based project. The review will work alongside the Quality of Life Policy Group, set up by David Cameron and affect our environment and the quality of our lives. The energy review will be published early next year and the policy group will report in July 2007. I am more than happy to pass on your points in Consideration as part of the review.

Thank you for taking time to get in touch. It is always important for me to hear the thoughts and views of those whom I represent here in Westminster. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if I can be of any further assistance."

nice letter, alex

the response is serious- as it should be. but more can be done

It's an excellent email, but I can't help thinking you got a standard reply. Your MP is probably far too busy claiming her travel expenses for her holiday to have spent time reading that lot. On the other hand, maybe you have an MP that does take it seriously, but they are not the type of people that I have faith in to wake up and smell the coffee.

I am preparing a document for their policy review which will contain some policy ideas that the Tories should consider adopting. I will also stress that this problem is so big and so large that the parties should agree to take a non-partisan approach to this. Furthermore the action taken should really be at the European or World-wide level. Feel free to add any of your policies to this thread and I may include them.

Also I would suggest that if you are registered to vote to e-mail your MP and let them know the seriousness of this situation. MP's may do something if they feel there are votes in it. Also I think that deep down beneath the thick hide you may even find a conscience in there. You can google for houses of parliament and it should bring back information on this.

I have 2 young children - and frankly now I wish I hadn't have bothered with the Peak oil and runaway global waming scenario.

A few distinguished speakers at the recent Soil Association conference. Topic Peak Oil
Download the podcasts

Ooh lovely a virus. How kind!

WE ARE PAST IT - Past the Peak in Oil, argues Kunstler:

Kunstler part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YnZhQxPaAA

We are going to make "other arrangements" on how we occupy our planet...

Thanks to "the Global Energy predicament" / i.e. Peak Oil

+ Greatest amount of crude oil pumped - May 2005
+ Greatest amount of crude and oil liquids - 2006

Suffering people in the third world have had to opt-out thanks to rising prices.
The competition amongst the first-world countries will keep pushing up prices.

Fewer and fewer countries are net exporters of oil

+ Canada
+ Mexico
+ Saudi Arabia

are the main sources of America for oil. They are losing their export capacity

Some of the largest oilfields in the world are now in terminal decline. Cantarelle in Mexico is now on the otherside of the exponential curve - this time it is declining. New extraction well methodology has only served to increase the efficiency and speed by which we consume. Multi head drilling under the oilfield boosts production but when it is close to running out there will be little warning from the gradual watering out that has happened in the past in Oman and Kuwait. The "water cut" will suddenly go to 85% and the field will be totatlly uneconomic.
The same problem has already hit Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. This field is enormous stretching 120 miles in a 30 mile corridor - say, London to Birmingham in a 30 mile wide band! But, it has been pumping since 1954. The West has frequently leaned on the Saudis to pump more oil as "swing" producer. This has not helped the oil wells. They need to "rest"; if they are not allowed to the recoverable oil proportion goes down. It damages the structure of the well. Ghawar is "watering out" fast.
The Saudis have very little oil left on shore. The oil they have is deep under the sands and as thick as Canadian Tar sands. The easy oil has been depleted. Why else would they have out-bid all the Western oil companies, just before Katrina struck,for 3 giant OFFSHORE drilling rigs. The Saudis are now having to drill on their continental shelf. Why endure this cost if you have plenty of "reserves" on shore!??
Oil is grossly underpriced. A pint of oil is priced at about 40 pence per pint; the price of bottled water.
Oil will go a lot higher, and sooner than we think. The rate of depletion of world oilfields far exceeds the rate of new discoveries. The big oil companies on Wall Street consider it better use of resources to buy back their shares than to drill. This tells us that the oil companies know that the value of the oil reserves in the ground is very lowly valued.
Sincerely
Hogwild

Good points.
And if we are really past the peak, this will change many iportnat things about our society and our global economy.

Kunstler has some intriging thoughts on the coming "Long Emergency"

IEA are using very strong language w.r.t. oil supply..........

November 7, 2007
Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand
By JAD MOUAWAD and JULIA WERDIGIER
LONDON, Nov. 7 — A leading international energy agency today urged oil-producing countries to replenish crude oil inventories in light of a record oil price.
In unusually urgent tones, the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.

“At current prices the market is signaling that stocks need to be higher, something that is in the power of producers to address,” Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the I.E.A., told journalists at a briefing in London. “Since this time last year, the world outlook has deteriorated. Demand is higher and supply worsening.”
Bolstered by speedy economic development and industrialization, energy demand from Asia has been one of the main contributors to higher oil prices. Over the last two years, China and India accounted for about 70 percent of the increase in energy demand and the world’s energy needs would increase 55 percent by 2030. Another reason for higher prices is investments not made by oil producers, including the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the agency said.
Strong demand has helped push oil prices to a series of records in recent weeks. Crude oil rose 1 percent, to $97.62 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange and futures climbed to $98.62, the highest intraday price since trading began in 1983. Prices are closing in on a record level, adjusted for inflation, of $101.70 a barrel in April 1980.
High economic growth in China and India could push oil prices to $159 a barrel by 2030, the agency said. Fatih Birol, the agency’s chief economist and the lead author of its flagship publication, The World Energy Outlook 2007, presented today, said that while economic growth should be encouraged because it helps to meet increasing energy demand through fostering innovation, it needs to happen in tandem with policies for energy efficiency.
Mr. Birol called on the Chinese government to put standards and quotas in place that would allow the country to grow while slowing energy consumption and carbon emissions. Car sales in China, which overtook Japan last year and are expected to overtake the United States by 2015, contribute to rising oil demand and harm the environment and are an area where new policies could take effect, he said. “We’re not running out of energy or money, but we’re running out of time,” Mr. Birol said.
The agency said the immediate adoption of policies, including tougher efficiency standards for air-conditioners and refrigerators in India and China, would result in China saving the amount of power produced by the enormous Three Gorges dam by 2020 and India profiting from a reduction of pollution.
The next decade is crucial for the stability of the global energy system, the agency said. Decisions made today in China and India — for example, whether to continue investment in coal-fired power plants or to adopt policies to tackle global warming — will have worldwide consequences for decades.
China’s and India’s energy use is projected to double from 2005 to 2030. By 2030, the two countries will account for nearly half the increase in global demand. China is expected to overtake the United States as the world’s top carbon emitter this year and the largest energy consumer soon after 2010, the agency said. In India, where more than 400 million people have no access to electricity, energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030.
China and India argue that it is unfair to blame them for rising energy prices, and they have resisted calls to limit carbon emissions when their economies are trying to catch up with development levels in the West. Energy use per person in those countries remains much lower than in the industrial nations.
In its report, the energy agency recognized the legitimate aspirations of China and India to improve the lives of their people. It said, moreover, that solving energy problems is a global responsibility that demands action by all countries.
“The challenges are global so solutions are global,” Mr. Tanaka said. “The global energy system is on an increasingly unsustainable path. Policies can make a difference but for those to be achieved implementations need to start now.”
<SNIP><SNIP>
Read the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/07cnd-energy.html.

To get a view from India's perspective, read
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Busines...how/2526709.cms

MunsterK

"Another reason for higher prices is investments not made by oil producers, including the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, the agency said. Strong demand has helped push oil prices to a series of records in recent weeks."

The IEA is in denial. The easy discoveries of the giant oilfields have been made and they are being very rapidly depleted. Oil reserves are not being replaced at same pace. The easy-to-find-and-pump type of low cost oil has been mispriced for decades. The most important resource in the world has been allowed to be sold at the lowest prices. The human race has squandered a large amount of the cheapest oil.

In the future, oil will be more difficult to find, and that which is found, will be more difficult to extract and will need a higher market price to bring it on stream. Western Oil Companies only control 15% of the oil reserves; the remainder is with national oil companies that do not have the same economic model as a private enterprise. Western oil companies can only make investments in exploration if mineral -rights contracts are honoured by nation states. Unfortunately, agreements are rescinded at will by Russia and others offering little incentive now to the major oil companies.
OPEC oil exports are falling because the OPEC nations are consuming more themselves.
Non OPEC production has been declining for 4 years. Supplies in storage have been gradually drawn down to low levels to make up the difference. With little marginal capacity prices can only rise. They will rise to whatever level is necessary to make it worthwhile to shoulder the risks(especially political risks). That price may $200; who knows?

Oil producers can now put buyers from East and West into competition with each other, to raise prices

Hello, I am new to this forum.

I voted "bear". My reasons are:

Peak oil has already started (probably 2005) and we are now comming of the peak.

This will destroy our complex oil-based energy-driven-civilisation

The will be no managed climb down from the oil age. Instead, there will be a rout.

Without cheap oil and gas to keep the food supply chain going, around 80% of the world's human population will eventually have to go into the night

We will undoubtably drag much of the biosphere along with us on the way down

I need to find somehwere for my family to hide away and batten down the hatches for the next 30 years or so.

If we get WWIII on the way down (which, frankly, I think very likely). there will be nowhere safe

I want my mummy.......

Steve