Collapse is Inevitable

[GliderGuider]

Written by an acquaintance from The Oil Drum:

Collapse is Inevitable

Ecological collapse of the world’s ecosystem is a lead pipe cinch. It is already well underway and instead of slowing down, it is gaining momentum fast. Here are just a few examples from recent news.

“Under business as usual, the current soils that are in agricultural production will yield about 30 percent less than they would do otherwise by around 2050. If we keep treating our soil the way we do, we will have to convert about 70 percent of the earth’s surface into agriculture to meet demand for food by 2050 (from about 40 percent now), Crawford said.

The water tables of China and India and other parts of Asia (GG: And the Ogallala) are dropping by meters per year. Many irrigation wells in India are dry and many Indian cities are totally without water. Water must be trucked in. In the US, the Ogallala aquifer that covers part of eight states in the Midwest is being depleted. Soon it will feed only half as many people.

And let’s talk about fish. This article written eleven years ago, says fish stocks have declined by 90% since 1950. And this article written just four years ago says they all could be gone in 40 years, (36 years from now). Is it not blatantly obvious what we are doing to the ocean? And it is not just the fish, bottom trawl nets are destroying the life that grows on the continental shelf ocean floor. And plastics in the ocean are killing turtles. They think it is jelly fish. And even the wandering albatross are being wiped out. They too are eating the plastic trash and regurgitating it into the gullet of their young. Their skeletal bodies cover Midway and other bird islands.

And of course, not the least of problems, is oil, the lifeblood of civilization, will soon peak and then decline… forever. But still people say: “Not to worry, we have technology. We will develop wind and solar power, battery powered cars, trucks and tractors, we will adapt… yes that’s the ticket, it will all happen so slowly we will adapt.”

To hell you say. What’s happening slowly is we are destroying the very earth we depend on for life. It is happening slowly and we are not adapting. We are making no attempt to adapt. We are only making it worse every day. Most will not even admit it is happening. And most of the few who do realize what is happening believe that humans will not suffer that much even if we do wipe out all other mega fauna on earth.

We will do nothing to adapt, slowly or otherwise. Of course we will build battery powered cars but that will only help mitigate the price of oil. We will do nothing to mitigate the destruction of the earth. And trying to adapt with wind and solar power will fall far short of what is needed. It will prove way too expensive and as the peak of oil production will catch us all off guard. A stock market crash followed by a deep recession will likely follow. Private industry will have little capital to convert anything and the man in the street will have even less. But even if they did, that would make little difference in the long run.

[tularetom]

1. Jeezus will come back and save us

So see, we aren't screwed after all.

[hollysmom]

4. no no, you have this all wrong

We are supposed to ruin the earth then Jesus will take the deserving to a new planet to ruin and he bad people will be left to live on hell on earth.

Too bad the people that believe it have it backwards - they are the evil ones who are ruining the earth.

[defacto7]

11. Dominionists!

Use up the earth as fast as we can because the bible says to "take dominion of the earth and subdue it". Afterward it's all over and there's heaven for the destroyers of the earth and hell for the protectors of it.... at least that's how I see it.

BS.

[Shivering Jemmy]

2. Meh

Pessism is a cop-out.

[awoke_in_2003]

7. so is denial of reality. nt

[Shivering Jemmy]

33. Who denied anything?

There is not one denial in what I posted.

[awoke_in_2003]

35. I read you comment about pessimism

as being a comment against the facts, not our ability to do something about it. My apologies.

[defacto7]

12. Blind optimism

in the face of facts and reality is like faith... it's something you believe in even though it's not there. But If optimism can bring a measure of hope that truth cannot, then be full of optimism and live your life that way.

Blind optimism is useless to me personally. I want to know what's real and if the facts are in line with extinction, fight it to the end. I choose not believe in something as a placebo to lengthen the lives of a few wealthy hoarders then go down ignorant and fearful.. or my children, or their children.... segue

What's mentioned in this OP is very mild in the scope things. That's the data and the laws of thermodynamics.

[Shivering Jemmy]

32. I know more about the laws of thermodynamics

Than 95 percent of users here.

But thermal physics is not the problem with climate change.

Choices made by real people are. And if people as a species cannot learn to do the correct thing...well what are you worried about? They are not worth saving in that case.

But I believe they can and are.

[GliderGuider]

36. So what do you know about MPP and MEPP?

i.e. the influence of the Second Law on dynamical systems that are far from equilibrium? That relationship is the key to understanding how the dissipation of energy gradients drives self-organizing systems. In consequence our species-level behavior has adapted over the last million years to ensure we are genetically predisposed to take full advantage of every energy gradient we can, with very few objections tolerated.

But you probably already knew that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_principle
http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/189/284

[defacto7]

38. ^ this ^

[defacto7]

37. Then you are not a blind optimist.

You are an optimist. Nothing wrong with that nor have I disagreed with optimism as viable choice. Your comment #2 gives the impression of pure blind, closed minded optimism. That is as dangerous as pure blind, close minded pessimism.

I'm a hard nosed environmentalist. I do agree that choices made by people are what cause climate change. But the OP in about collapse of the world’s ecosystem and what we know is dismal and inevitable. It does not mean "live and let die", it means coming face to face with our inevitable near extinction. The tea cup has smashed and the laws of thermodynamics will not allow its reversal back to what it was. You don't have to agree or swallow an argument of forced acceptance for that position, you can ignore, deny, whatever makes your life work for you. We will keep fighting and working and trying... we can try to regain a portion of time in the equation, we can be as creative as we are capable of to make a stand for the planet. That doesn't change.

Most people do not want to accept our NTHE let alone look at it; it's an anathema to humankind.

As I wrote in another post:

If you not able to handle the truth, that's OK, because that part doesn't matter....

What does matter is that we still keep trying because if there is a small light in the heart of humankind it must shine for as long as possible. We really won't be here for many generations, but what time there is left, those of us few open-minded, naive humans with illusions of agency will defy the destroyers of our kind, exhaling to the last winds of time saying that we were, and that we could have been more.

Being an optimist doesn't necessarily mean you live in faith of something that you simply hope for, sometimes it means understanding the facts so the tools you choose to fight with are real not imaginary.

Be well!

[GliderGuider]

34. Pessimism may be quite healthy.

Pessimism About the Future May Lead to Longer, Healthier Life, Research Finds

WASHINGTON—Older people who have low expectations for a satisfying future may be more likely to live longer, healthier lives than those who see brighter days ahead, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

"Our findings revealed that being overly optimistic in predicting a better future was associated with a greater risk of disability and death within the following decade," said lead author Frieder R. Lang, PhD, of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany. "Pessimism about the future may encourage people to live more carefully, taking health and safety precautions." The study was published online in the journal Psychology and Aging®.

Five years after the first interview, 43 percent of the oldest group had underestimated their future life satisfaction, 25 percent had predicted accurately and 32 percent had overestimated, according to the study. Based on the average level of change in life satisfaction over time for this group, each increase in overestimating future life satisfaction was related to a 9.5 percent increase in reporting disabilities and a 10 percent increased risk of death, the analysis revealed.

Because a darker outlook on the future is often more realistic, older adults’ predictions of their future satisfaction may be more accurate, according to the study. In contrast, the youngest group had the sunniest outlook while the middle-aged adults made the most accurate predictions, but became more pessimistic over time.

[defacto7]

39. Guess I'll live a thousand years.

Interesting article.

[brewens]

3. I just watched Ken Burns: The Dustbowl not too long ago. I was really amazed by that.

I had this image that it was just like poor Oakie farmers out there with mules. I knew it was poor farming practices along with the drought but had no idea the mechanization the farmers used to creat the disaster. Guys out there plowing up the prairie at night using with lights on their tractors!

They made a lot of money at first. Then when the bottom fell out of the wheat market, they plowed and planted more, hoping prices would rebound and they could make up for their losses.

I wonder if we could have just left that whole souther plains area natural grass, let the buffalo roam and harvested them? Buffalo is pretty darn tasty! A buddy of mine works for a Native American tribe and they hook him up. You don't turn down a barbeque invitation at that dudes place!

[hollysmom]

5. My dad worked for the CCC planting trees for a wind break

I understand it bothers big ag that they can't plow for miles and they are cutting those trees down now.

[brewens]

10. Obviously! It failed miserably before but if we try the same thing again,it's sure to work out! n/t

[hollysmom]

17. I just miss the wisdom of doing something productive

for the economy and for the future - people have forgotten how to look to the future and nudge things in a good way.

[GliderGuider]

18. We're always nudging things "in a good way". That's how we got here.

Different people have different ideas of what 'a good way" is. Most think it has something to do with building society, having kids and getting raises in order to give those kids a "better" life in the future. Instead we ended up here, with more and more people wondering what went wrong and looking for someone to blame. All without once looking in the mirror.

[hollysmom]

19. withthe exception of a few years, I try and keep my foot print small.

Fir a couple of years I liked going for car rides to no where, but then I just settled down in a town with sidewalks and 25% parkland, so I can walk in the evening instead. But still, it helps to have money to do that. I mowed the lawn with my plastic electric mower (20 years old), it takes 3 days to mow the lawn, it does not hold a charge as well, but then again, neither do i. I mulch the grass and hand weed the most invasive. Let the lawn grow tall once a year so it can seed itself. Use a small fan instead of air conditioning, But I am computer addicted. Still, My electric meter is across form my neighbors and I watch the circle slowly turn, while my neighbors seems to be at a gallop. -
how do you have to live to not screw things up?

[GliderGuider]

20. There isn't any "right" way to live so we don't screw things up.

We're very clever monkeys, so everything we do "screws things up" to some degree. Seven billion of us screw things up seven billion times as badly.

The best we can do is to take stock of our values and what we really need out of life, and then act mindfully in our pursuit of happiness and right living. We can't change the matrix of civilization that we depend on for our very survival.

The Serenity Prayer is a good guide for dealing with our addiction to civilization as well as to alcohol or other behaviors: Change the things we can, accept the things we can't change, and develop the wisdom to know the difference. "Things we we can't change" includes most of the behavior of others who make different choices.

To quote the Indigo Girls, "It's only life, after all."

[jwirr]

27. And while they do that they are lowering their water levels in their wells. I was back in Iowa

this month and surprised at the number of farmers who are planting trees in their fence lines again.

[edgineered]

6. You can show the words and they get read.

The problem must be from having a short attention span or inability to follow an idea past two sentences without losing tract. Just look at the deniers and liars, they snicker as we destroy ourselves and have freedumbz and things that we should be proud of. RAH

[alterfurz]

8. "We'll keep doing what we do until we can't...

...and then we won't." -- James Kunstler

[cantbeserious]

9. + 1,000

eom

[defacto7]

13. ^ this ^

[GliderGuider]

14. ^^ Agree. nt

[flamingdem]

15. It's happening

[Starboard Tack]

16. As much as I agree with most of thism I still see light at the end of the tunnel

Mainly because I think we will see a collapse of the global economy prior to any ecological collapse. This will result in massive civil unrest and starvation, specially in developed countries. As tragic as this may be, the silver lining will be the fact that the principle polluters will disappear and the earth's population will be decimated. Then, hopefully, after a period of deep reflection, we can rebuild in a less arrogant and more harmonious way.

[LouisvilleDem]

21. The Oil Drum is still around?

I would have thought they'd have ducked their collective heads and crept off out of pure embarrassment at how many times they've been wrong. I guess when your philosophical position on 'truth' is that it really doesn't matter, little things like being wrong about virtually everything doesn't bother you much.

[GliderGuider]

22. They closed down last September.

Last edited Mon Jul 21, 2014, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

If you had followed any of the discussions there, you'd know that the range of opinions among the staff and the readership was extremely wide. Many on both sides (staff and readership) felt that the site's editorial position was too narrow, absolutist and simplistic. The final arbiter of reality isn't some small set of opinions (whether theirs, yours or mine) but reality itself. We shall see what unfolds.

[FBaggins]

25. That's charitable

the range of opinions among the staff and the readership was extremely wide

But not wide enough to encompass what really happened.

felt that the site's editorial position was too narrow, absolutist and simplistic

Is that nice way of saying that once it was clear that their core positions were wrong, they didnt have the rhetorical flexibility to continue without constantly being called on it?

[happyslug]

24. I have NOT seen any evidence that world wide oil production did NOT peak in 2005

When studying Peak Oil, you have to understand TWO problems:

1. First is the lack of firm data and
2: Second that Peal oil is when 1/2 of all oil has been pumped, but 1/2 that can be pumped is still in the ground. It is NOT the end of oil usage or production.

Lets address the first problem first, the lack of firm data:

US oil production has INCREASED since 2005, mostly because the price of oil was high enough to justify opening oil fields previously considered to costly to drill. If oil ever drops below $80 a barrel ($1.90 a gallon PLUS the 20-30 cents for refining and distribution, the 18.4 cents a gallon FEDERAL gasoline tax and the what ever your state charges, comes out to about $2.50 to $3,00 a gallon) these fields are unprofitable. It is also expected for these fields to go into terminal declines by 2017, they life span is quite short unlike earlier oil fields (many of which will be producing oil as seeper wells while after all of the oil field produced by fracking are dry).

This is one of the situation everyone acknowledged would occur with peak oil, prices would raise, previous oil fields to costly to produce before would be put into production and slow down and even reverse the decline in oil production, but that would be only a temporary stay of 5-10 years, then production will go into sharp decline and rapid price increases.

The problem with predicting when peak oil would occur was that to many people were NOT revealing oil production numbers. Others were out and out lying about how much recoverable oil they had. It became like the old Soviet Union and wheat production. So many people were lying about what their "farm" was doing that by the time the numbers reached Moscow the numbers were so unreliable that Moscow ended up using CIA estimates of Soviet Wheat production (The CIA went by satellite photos analysis, comparing each Soviet farm with a similar American farm and coming up with a reliable estimate for the Americans Farmers were NOT lying about their wheat production).

Thus anyone with any sense always gave broad estimates of when Peak Oil would occur and it was NOT unusual for people to give up to three estimates depending on who was lying the least. The Three ranges included the following:

1. The mostly widely mentioned estimate was 2010. This estimate was based on what the oil companies said were in the oil fields BEFORE such fields were nationalized, These tended to be considered the best estimate for the SEC at that time period (this ruled was changed in 2009 to the present rule of NO outside estimate being needed) was that any estimate of any oil field had to be confirmed by an outside source. Now, the oil companies also wanted to avoid the problem they had with Mexico in 1938 and Iran in 1954, when the oil fields were nationalized and both Mexico and Iran said the proper price was what the oil companies claim those fields to be for Wall Street purposes (In those disputes the Oil Companies wanted more money for the oil companies said there was more oil in the fields being nationalized then the oil companies were claiming to be in those fields for Wall Street purposes). Do to the fear of nationalization, the oil estimates were a little high, but not unreasonably high (The SEC had to be happy that the numbers had some justification behind them). Under this test the estimate was about 2010 give to take 5 years. There is at least one report from the 1950s that such an estimate was made in the 1950s, but it was never released by the Government. Admiral Richover made a speech in the mid 1950s where he said it was estimated that oil production would drop after about 2000. The 2010 estimate was the result of the drop in world wide oil usage increases in the 1970s (Yes it was a drop in how much MORE oil was being used NOT a drop in actual usage).

2. 2005, if you believed the Oil Companies LIED about how much oil was in the above mentioned Oil fields.

3. 2020, if you accept as true what OPEC is now claiming is the how much recoverable oil they have.

All of the above estimates had a 5-10 years variation, to many IFS, to be more precise then that. On the other hand oil is turned into Natural Gas if oil ever is pushed below 20,000 feet, a depth oil companies could drill to as early as 1938. Thus, unlike peak natural gas, peak oil would be reasonably predicted and it appears we are in peak oil today. It is looking more and more like 2005 was the peak production date. The Recession since 2008 has kept the demand for oil down (The US has actually DROP oil usage since 2008, the first time oil usage has drop since Colonel Drake drill his first oil well in 1859).

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) is still very active:

http://www.peakoil.net/

Now, lets address the second problem, that Peak Oil is NOT the end of oil usage or oil supplies, just that demand for oil will exceed supplies as production of oil declines.

It has been found that most oil fields have a production graph like a bell curve, i.e. 1/2 is produced at increasing production levels, till peak in that field is achieved, then a decline sets in that mirrors the increase. Some fields have a rapid decline, other have a much slower decline, but when you start looking at all fields, these extremes tend to balance each other out and we return to the classic bell curve for over all production.

Thus if peak oil was in 2010, then by 2050 world wide oil production will be at the level it was in 1970. Prices will be much higher, but oil will be readily available. The US will have to cut back oil usage not to what the US was using in 1970, but to a greater extent for we are talking of WORLD WIDE usage not just usage in the US (The rest of the world will be willing to pay more for oil then many Americans will be, for much of the world is as dependent on oil today as the US was in 1970).

One way to look at this is we have pumped oil since 1860, that is 150 years before 2010. Thus the reverse slope of production would indicate the last drop of oil will be pumped around 2160. That is assuming some other form of energy does not step in a replace oil before then (Right now that looks like Solar, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear, all producing electricity, but none of them able to provide the energy power gasoline can provide to a small car or plane, thus I expect social changes to reflect the decline in the ability to use an automobile, which is one way to reduce the use of oil).

Now, if we accept that people outside the US will NOT give up their use of automobiles, US usage of oil will have to decline more then the rest of the world. Thus by 2050 MAY have to be the same as it was in 1950, a time period where most people owned a car and privately operated mass transit was on its death bed. In the 1950s gasoline was 25 cents a gallon, by 2050 the prices may be $25 a gallon, but that does NOT mean most people will NOT own a car. VW came up with a car that obtain 250 mpg, its performance was no were near what cars do today, but it was able to keep up with traffic and get people from point a to point b in roughly the same time period as people do today. It used light weight material and was a two seater but it showed what can be done to increase mileage. It also show that to improve mileage over what the Hybrids are doing today, performance has to be cut AND what we pay for a car will have to increase.

We also have to understand two other concepts, first is that oil producing countries will stop exporting oil well before they run out, to preserve what oil they have for their own use. Russia thus may just stop exporting oil, as its production of oil reaches the level of oil usage in Russia. Given that Russia is one of the big three oil producers that would hurt anyone who is importing oil for not only the US, but all other oil importing nations will be willing to pay higher price for any remaining oil being exported by anyone.

All of this is in the future, maybe 20-30 years maybe sooner, but long after Peak Oil has hit. When Peak Oil hit (and it looks like it hit around 2010), prices will raise till another group of people can no longer afford oil and drop out of the market. At that point prices will stabilize (and maybe even drop a little). No big drop, for the people who stopped buying oil will re enter the market if the price drops enough. That re-entrance will stabilize the price drop and lead to further price increases.

In many ways we are in such a period now, mass transit has seen its greatest increase in ridership since the 1950s as people tried to reduce their use of oil (more do to inability to pay for gasoline then anything else). Walking to work has also stabilize, after declining for decades. Biking to work, while still less then walking, is increasing. People are looking at ways to save money, and one way is to use less gasoline and oil. These efforts have had an affect on reducing demand and keeping prices from jumping through the roof, but it also affects the high price of oil.

Just a comment that Peak Oil is still alive and well, Peak Oil is NOT the end of oil usage but when the market for oil does a radical change, from one where demand and supply increased together, to one where supply goes into a slow but steady decline AND the price of oil goes into a slow but steady increase. We are in such a period right now and thus the high price of gasoline even while massive efforts are being made to produce more.

[FBaggins]

26. If you haven't seen it... then you aren't looking.

It's one thing to say that you're not convinced that the clear evidence constitutes proof... it's quite another to say that the evidence does not exist. Because it clearly does.

Second that Peal oil is when 1/2 of all oil has been pumped

That may be relatively recent spin, but it is not the definition of peak oil that has been used for years. Peak oil is simply the maximum rate of production - which may or may not occur near the half-way point of total production.

[GliderGuider]

29. Has oil peaked or hasn't it?

I was sure back in 2007 that it had. However, the story is more complicated than that.



The graph shows global production of Crude Oil and Lease Condensate (C&C) only. There are a few periods of interest on that graph.

Up to the middle of 2004, oil production was growing much as it had in the past - some peaks and hollows, but generally an upward trend.

From mid-2004 till late in 2008, oil production was on a bumpy plateau: average production of 73.5 mbpd, in a range of -1.6% to +2%. This is the plateau that many peakists identified as "the peak"

In late 2008 the world economy crashed, and demand destruction set in, dropping production by 3 mbpd (~4%) by January, 2009.

It took the world two years to regain the production it had lost in those four months, perhaps due to the time it took to ramp economic demand back up again. However, it's worth noting that only one country made a substantial contribution to that recovery: Saudi Arabia filled over half of it (1.6 mbpd)

From the beginning of 2012 to today we appear to be on another plateau, slightly higher than the one from 2005 to 2008. This period showed an average production of 76 mbpd, in a range of -1.1% to +1.6%.

Global production of all other petroleum-style liquids shows a very different trend. Since the beginning of 2004 the production of these other liquids has added 4.4 mbpd (a 43% increase) on a decade-long linear trend. Over the same decade, C&C production rose less than 12%.

So has crude oil production peaked or hasn't it? We don't have enough of a rear-view mirror yet to say for sure, but the production behavior in the last decade makes me think it's at least on a long-term plateau. The world obviously wants more petroleum (as evidenced by the growth in other liquids), but the traditional sources seem to be having a hard time meeting that demand.

Which is my way of saying that I don't think the TOD crew were completely out to lunch. I don't much care any more, frankly - there are too many looming global disasters for me to lose any sleep over whether the heuristics of PO are "correct" or whether a faltering oil supply will help to push us over the edge.

[FBaggins]

30. It hasn't.

I was sure back in 2007 that it had

So was the author of the OP. Both of you were wrong... and no, it isn't more complicated than that.

However, it's worth noting that only one country made a substantial contribution to that recovery: Saudi Arabia filled over half of it (1.6 mbpd)

It's also worth noting that at the time, the author believed that this was impossible. The Saudis were (supposedly) in terminal decline. There were lots of very detailed analyses showing why this was so.

Another reason for the current gains is the production from unconventional sources in the US and Canada. Both of which were analyzed at length (dozens of times) on TOD explaining why they could never make a difference.

From the beginning of 2012 to today we appear to be on another plateau

And we go back to the same questions I was asking him around 2006. When a peakist sees a "plateau" he assumes that it is supply-driven. That is... the world would produce more if it could - but it can't. We simply don't know that that's true. It wasn't true in the 70s/80s, and now we know that it wasn't true in 2005. The world had not hit peak oil, it simply takes a few years for production to ramp up to a new pricing reality. There's reason to believe that this ramp-up is not over.

So has crude oil production peaked or hasn't it? We don't have enough of a rear-view mirror yet to say for sure

We have more than enough to say that the claims of 2007 were wrong.

Note also that the prediction wasn't for a "plateau" lasting through 2014... we both saw scores of charts with what the IAE (etc) was predicting vs. what the peak oil reality meant... and TOD predictions were the ones that were far off.

I don't much care any more, frankly - there are too many looming global disasters for me to lose any sleep over whether the heuristics of PO are "correct" or whether a faltering oil supply will help to push us over the edge.

And on that - the author of the OP agrees with you. I remember fairly clearly that he thought that being wrong would only mean that things would be worse for his grandkids. To the extent that it means continued fossil production and burning - and less renewables and nuclear power... I agree as well.

[GliderGuider]

31. My worry now is not that there is too little fossil fuel, but too much.

One of the things that really snapped my head around on PO was finally understanding that climate change isn't some distant threat, but is here now. AGW is a far more dangerous threat than PO. And of course there's the state of the oceans, the state of the world's ground water, the bees and the bats heralding ecological collapse, and on and on.

I don't mind having been wrong about PO in 2007. I've changed my position since then, and learned a lot about the world and myself in the process. In retrospect, my beliefs were rooted in a psychological desire for certainty. The future is inherently uncertain, but it's uncomfortable to live with that realization. It's far easier for most of us to manufacture some kind of belief-based certainty, support it with some numbers and a few appeals to authority, and then cling to it even in the face of dissonant evidence. PO isn't much different from the Rapture from that point of view...

[happyslug]

40. Peak oil has ALWAYS been the 1/2 way point....

When Hubbard did his analysis in the 1950s as to US Oil production and made his prediction of US Oil peak about 1970, it was based on the point where 1/2 of oil was to be gone.

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

It is important to note that the point of maximum production (known as the Hubbert Peak) tends to coincide with the midpoint of depletion of the resource under consideration. In the case of oil, this means that when we reach the Hubbert Peak,

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm

Hubbards actual 1956 paper:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

I agree with you some people took Peak Oil to mean the end of oil, but THAT was NOT the position of the people who supported world wide Peak Oil and was NOT the position of Hubbard who first came up with the subject in the 1950s.

As to oil production, US Oil production is UP, but NOT up to what it peaked in 1969. Russian oil production in in decline, Mexico Oil production is in decline, North Sea Oil production is in decline.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/index.cfm?view=production

US oil peaked in October 1970 at 310 million barrels of oil per day, In April 2014 it was only at 250 million barrels per day:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M

The UK is now a net importer of oil, oil production has been in declined since 1999 at 2.9 million barrels of oil per day, it is now down to .9 million barrels of oil per day (900,000 barrels of oil per day)
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=UK

The other North Sea oil "Giant" Norway has seen oil production declines since 2001 when production peaked at 3.4 million barrels of oil per day, till 2013 when production was just 1.8 million barrels of oil per day:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=NO

The old #1 source of imported Oil into the US, Mexico, has been in declines since 2004 when Mexico oil production peaked at 3.8 million barrels of oil per day, it is now down to 2.9 Millions of barrels per day.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=MX

Saudi Arabia is in decline, but it is a very small decline 11.6 Million barrels per day, instead of 11.7 million barrels of oi per day:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=SA

Kuwait production seems to have flatten out, Increasing from just under 2.8 millions of barrels a day in 2012, to just above that number in 2013:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=KU#pet

Iran's oil production took a nose dive in 2012 and continue to decline, through it is still the #2 OPEC producer of oil, behind Saudi Arabia but ahead of Iraq. Iran production peaked at 4.2 million barrels of oil per day to 3.2 million of barrels of oil per day:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=IR

Iraq production increased to 2012 to just under 3 million barrels of oil per day, since 2012 production has increased, but to barely over that number:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=IZ#pet


Russia had a slight increase between 2012 and 2013, but production is expected to decline but is still 10.5 million barrels per day:

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=RS

Expectation of Russia oil production decline:

Production in 2014 is falling:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/russia-energy-production-idUKL6N0NO0UL20140502

Venezuela production peaked in 1997 and declined till 2010, then flatten out at 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.

http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=VE#pet

As to US Oil production, it is up only do to Gulf of Mexico Production and Shale Oil. The predictions for Shale oil is slowly coming out to be FALSE (peak is expected in 2017, but may occur this year, where new wells being drilled are less then old wells being closed down).

Lets look at the large oil producers in 2012:

Russia (10.40) (Uses 3.2)
Saudi Arabia (11.73) (uses 2.8)
United States (11.11) (Net Importer uses 18.9 million barrels of oil per day)
China ( 4.4) (Net Importer, uses 10.3 millions of barrels of oil per day)
Brazil ( 2.7) (Uses 2.8, barely an importer of oil)
Canada ( 3.9) (uses 2.3)
Iran ( 3.5) (uses 1.7)
Iraq ( 3.0) (uses .75)
Kuwait ( 2.8) (uses .38)
Mexico ( 2.9) (Uses 2.1 of oil)
Nigeria ( 2.5) (uses 2.7 a net importer since 2011)
Qatar ( 2.0) (uses .19)
United Arab Emirates ( 3.2) (uses .62)
Venezuela ( 2.5) (Uses .77)
Algeria ( 1.9) (uses .33)
Angola ( 1.8) (uses .09)
Kazakhstan ( 1.6) (uses .25)
Libya ( 1.5) (uses .17)
Norway ( 1.9) (uses .22)
United Kingdom ( 1.0) (uses 1.5, net Importer)

Everyone else (204 countries) produce less then 1% of all oil. Three of the above are now solid oil importers, the US, UK and China. Two of the above are barely net importers, Nigeria and Brazil. Mexico is rapidly headed to be a net importer of oil (and given that the main revenue for the Mexican Government is the sale of oil, big trouble for Mexico).

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=5&aid=2

Since 2000, Mexico has seen a lost of 1 million barrels a day of production, Norway has lost 1.5. the UK has lost 2.0, Venezuela, 1.0, Iran has lost 1.0 (Through only 400,000 barrels from 2000, (Iran's peak was in 2011 which is offset by the increase in Iraq production of about the same amount since 2000).

Thus, ignoring Iran and Iraq, you have seen a 4.5 million barrels of oil DECLINE in Mexico, Venezuela, Noway and the UK since 2000. This is still 1,0 MORE then the increase in US oil production since 2000 (Bottom year for US production was 2005 where production was 8.3 million, but I used the year 2000 production amount of 9.5 Million barrels of oil as the base for I used 2000 for almost everyone else).

If it was NOT for the recession, price of gasoline would be higher. Do to the recession the demand for oil has been kept in check by a lack of demand. Peak oil will kick in soon, the question is when. The numbers are looking bad.

[LouisvilleDem]

41. Peak Oil has NEVER been the 1/2 way point

That's why it's called Peak Oil, not Half Oil.

Maybe we should let the folks at the Oil Drum define the term:

In its simplest formulation, "the theory" is that owing to geological constraints on flow rates from natural finite reservoirs, global oil production will one day reach a maximum point and thereafter inexorably decline.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10093

Or perhaps we should look at the conference where the term was first introduced:

Aspo president Professor Kjell Aleklett, of Sweden’s Uppsala University, kicked off proceedings by reflecting on the lessons learned in Aspo’s first decade. He noted that the term ‘peak oil’ was coined by himself and geologist Colin Campbell in 2002. It would have been ‘oil peak’, except that the acronym ASOP did not quite sound right. Aleklett, who launched his new book, Peeking at Peak Oil, provided a concise layperson’s guide to the key issues, nicely illustrated with colourful charts.

Peak oil is not about running out of oil. It refers to the fact that, since oil is a finite resource, the annual rate of production of oil must at some point reach an all-time maximum – a ‘peak’ – and then decline. This empirical phenomenon of peaking has already been observed in about two-thirds of oil producing countries as well as the regions of North America (peaked in 1985) and Europe (peaked in 2000). Global new oil discoveries have been declining since the 1960s and giant oilfields – accounting for some 60% of world supply – are declining at over 6% a year. Production of conventional oil has hardly risen since 2005, even though demand is burgeoning in developing countries.

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/peak-oil-is-no-myth-2012-07-27

It's also worth noting that the Wikipedia article on the subject specifically says your definition is wrong:

Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.

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

Finally, let's look at your very own quote:

It is important to note that the point of maximum production (known as the Hubbert Peak) tends to coincide with the midpoint of depletion of the resource under consideration. In the case of oil, this means that when we reach the Hubbert Peak,

So your own quote says the two things are not the same, merely that they are often correlated.


I think that pretty much dispenses with your claim.

QED.

[hunter]

23. The collapse is happening now, both environmental and economic.

If humans felt an electric shock every time a species went extinct, or every time humans started a war or began mass migrations as refugees for environmental and economic reasons, then we'd know.

The oligarchs probably won't let the stock market crash (there is plenty of evidence now that it's a fantasy football game for wealthy people) but it will become increasingly irrelevant to the lives of ordinary people.

The U.S.A. has been sliding downhill since the 'seventies and peak oil did happen. The substitutes for conventional oil are more expensive and not capable of supporting a nice house in the suburbs with a newer car in the garage for every U.S. American.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025269564

The greed, money hoarding, and fears of the wealthy are aggravating the problem.

Around the world, wherever economies are growing, it's at horrific environmental cost.

Throughout history, excepting extreme epidemics and genocide, the collapse of civilizations tend to happen in slow motion from the perspective of an individual human lifespan.

Unless we get a handle on our population growth and figure out how to create a safe, secure and comfortable lifestyles for everyone without the further use of fossil fuels, then things are only going to get worse.

[SummerSnow]

28. Wonder what Republicans will say if they

knew that the bible they claim to hold so dear says at Revelation 11:18- God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth.