IEA: We've Hit Peak

[Admiral Valdemar]

My Internet connection has been dying slowly for the past fortnight (avoid Tiscali like the fucking plague), and I'm in the process of moving to Cambridgeshire for a new job, so my time online is limited. But I do think the most important piece of news this week, along with record all time highs for oil, is one of the energy industry's Pollyanna's admitting in a report now that we're, for all intents and purposes, slightly fucked energy-wise.

I can't get to the link I'd post from this PC for the aforementioned reasons, but the understatement of the century is the world requiring an additional 20 million barrels daily of output being found right now just to stay at current supply rates being "a little tight". Sort of like how WWII was "a little violent", but it had good investment opportunities.

Just one more thing to add, which involves rubbing the US gov't's face in shit, such a fun past time of late. The combined global output of ethanol will reach maybe 1.8 mbpd by 2012, or about 1-2% total liquid fuels capacity.

I'm watching talking heads go on about the awesome 787 (how come when Boeing uses composites no one poo-poos it?) and crying. I'm paying about $8/gallon for petrol as it is.

Hope y'all having fun now.

[Eulogy]

The worst thing about hoping for more time is that you don't get it.

Here's hoping the fall is slow and soft.

[Lord Zentei]

If this is the report I think it is, he gives it till 2015 without Iraqi oil production increasing (which it almost certainly won't) before we hit a wall, going by 1.9% increase in consumption per year till 2012.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Actually, it's major problems by 2009 with 2 mbpd lost while the outlook is 5 years, or till 2012. Iraq is on the brink of collapse, Venezuela is ruining any chances it had of expansion even if it liked us, Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel and Nigeria is still in chaos. Ethanol is pathetic, even if it were affordable, deep-sea is going waaay off budget and oil and tar sands are expensive boondoggles.

Even the USAF, the largest single liquid fuel user, is looking to coal by 2010 and the US has only 100 years worth at present rates. This is a major reason why the bill for Iraq is now sky rocketing.

If we implement a Manhattan Project style crash programme today, we may be able to deal with 1.5 maybe up to 2% or even 2.5%, optimistically, decline rate. That includes mass transit electrification, namely railways. Anything higher is unsurvivable. And that is what the IEA report projects, they seem to be oblivious to Jeffery Brown's Export Land Model where your oil goes quicker as exporters stop exporting (the UK Parliament has this week set-up a inquiry into the North Sea and Peak Oil given the expectations of the declining output being stopped and reversed by investment and new technology has failed to appear: the North Sea is now dropping at 60% a year in some fields. Imagine if the UK was the only exporter, the world would now have only 40% of what it had a year ago).

It all rests on OPEC. And they refuse demands for more. They will likely tacitly admit, as the IEA seems to be here, the wolf is at the door. Point to the beast, don't speak its name.

[Lord Zentei]

Actually, it's major problems by 2009 with 2 mbpd lost while the outlook is 5 years, or till 2012. Iraq is on the brink of collapse, Venezuela is ruining any chances it had of expansion even if it liked us, Russia is scraping the bottom of the barrel and Nigeria is still in chaos. Ethanol is pathetic, even if it were affordable, deep-sea is going waaay off budget and oil and tar sands are expensive boondoggles.

Even the USAF, the largest single liquid fuel user, is looking to coal by 2010 and the US has only 100 years worth at present rates. This is a major reason why the bill for Iraq is now sky rocketing.

Two years from now? Well, then you will probably be able to say "told ya", since this board will probably still exist at that point. I must admit to a greater optimism, though.

But with 100 years at current rates, the coal is sufficient to bridge the gap to nuclear.

If we implement a Manhattan Project style crash programme today, we may be able to deal with 1.5 maybe up to 2% or even 2.5%, optimistically, decline rate. That includes mass transit electrification, namely railways.

Yes, I figured in some thread or other that a 4-500 billion dollar or so a year coal project would be able to do that. Just over the current deficit for a decade or so. Will we feel a great pinch? Absolutely. But I'm skeptical on a Great Collapse being unavoidable.

Anything higher is unsurvivable.

Define "unsurvivable".

And that is what the IEA report projects, they seem to be oblivious to Jeffery Brown's Export Land Model where your oil goes quicker as exporters stop exporting.

Near as I can tell, Jeffery Brown's Export Land Model is debatable.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, we'll survive. *chuckles drolly* We'll survive. I don't think you'll much agree with the definition, though.

And, for the record, most of the reliable experts still think it won't be until 2011 (the other reliable experts are on Valdemar's side).

If that's the case, then you'll have from between 2013 - 2019 depending on sundry factors before the world completely upfucks itself.

Who knows. A couple more desperate finds, the Iranians restarting Iraqi production for us (nobody else will be able to) and sundry equipment upgrades in other states fueled by absolutely desperate governments, and people in the suburbs may just still have food to eat by 2020.

No worries, they'll be starving a year later.

[Lord Zentei]

Oh, we'll survive. *chuckles drolly* We'll survive. I don't think you'll much agree with the definition, though.

I'm farily sure I will, as I live well below my means.

If that's the case, then you'll have from between 2013 - 2019 depending on sundry factors before the world completely upfucks itself.

Who knows. A couple more desperate finds, the Iranians restarting Iraqi production for us (nobody else will be able to) and sundry equipment upgrades in other states fueled by absolutely desperate governments, and people in the suburbs may just still have food to eat by 2020.

No worries, they'll be starving a year later.

That span of time is enough for coal and nukes to replace the Iraqis. Unless, of course we get George III or something equivalent in 2008.

[SirNitram]

Methinks the complaints about the expense of synthetic petroleum are about to vanish in a puff of logic.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That span of time is enough for coal and nukes to replace the Iraqis. Unless, of course we get George III or something equivalent in 2008.

NOT without major reductions in our standard of living. We would have had to have started mitigating in 1991 to avoid suffering any ill consequences from a 2011 peak.

Remember the UK is going to get hit harder. Valdemar is talking literally if nobody bothers to send them food once this goes down.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And don't think Barack Obama is going to save your lives. Even the best candidate on this issue--who is actually Richardson--is just proposing an average fuel standard of 50mpg for vehicles by 2020. Nobody seems to have recognized the fact that vehicles won't be operating after 2020, assuming they are in 2020, which is a sizeable assumption.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Two years from now? Well, then you will probably be able to say "told ya", since this board will probably still exist at that point. I must admit to a greater optimism, though.

But with 100 years at current rates, the coal is sufficient to bridge the gap to nuclear.

At "present rates". The US military starts going at it, you can kiss that goodbye right away. Oil prices have gone from $10 to near $80 in 7 years, yet demand is growing. The IEA had to revise their estimates this year from 2% to 2.2% with further up revisions possible. No one is giving a shit.

Yes, I figured in some thread or other that a 4-500 billion dollar or so a year coal project would be able to do that. Just over the current deficit for a decade or so. Will we feel a great pinch? Absolutely. But I'm skeptical on a Great Collapse being unavoidable.

If it was started a decade ago, sure. And if you don't see double-digit shrinkage in oil and gas supplied over a decade as being something of a problem, I can't imagine what would scare you.

Define "unsurvivable".

Current way of life going extinct, ending the trend started by the industrial revolution. End of the green revolution (already seen by high food prices) and major resource wars and instability (Zimbabwe is facing collapse within a month, Turkey is ready to go into Iraq if need be, many Third World nations are off the grid and gone dark thanks to being priced out of the energy market).

Near as I can tell, Jeffery Brown's Export Land Model is debatable.

It's been demonstrated in the UK, Mexico, Russia and Iran. I don't see it being academic now. For a single digit reduction in product by geology, you get a double-digit one for exports.

I'd rather not go with the "told you so" because I've finally found a promising job with a biotech company that pays well and enables me to live in a pleasant country village with cats. All that looks quite naïve now.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not as worried about coal as such, because I think we have sizeable additional reserves in the form of oil shale (reserves of coal-equivalent material) which can be burned in existing powerplants with little additional difficulty. Of course, strict rationing of powerplant uses of coal may be necessary while we work on mitigation.

But then, I've said that 10 - 15 years without power at home for the average American is not impossible on repeated occasions, something that Valdemar probably thinks is optimistic, and yet I've still gotten mobbed by angry people basically saying "how you dare you propose that everyone suffer so much!"

Well, believe me, if I was a goddess this wouldn't be happening, okay?

[Eulogy]

So the worst place to be at Peak Oil is either on an island, in a Third world country, or in the suburbs.

I hate to say it, but a lot of innocent people are going to get right and proper fucked.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So the worst place to be at Peak Oil is either on an island, in a Third world country, or in the suburbs. :x

I hate to say it, but a lot of innocent people are going to get right and proper fucked.

It isn't an island so much as a "net food importer".

If the USA wasn't a massive net food exporter which produces at least three times as much food as its population needs to survive and then dumps most of that into growing hideously wasteful "corn-fed" meat, we would be the most thoroughly fucked nation on the planet. As it is, we're just going to kiss our suburbs goodbye and keep tightening our belts for quite sometime. And get used to plenty of shortages.

[NeoGoomba]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/09/business/oil.php

PARIS: Despite four years of high prices and increasingly dire warnings about climate change, a new report Monday predicted that world oil demand would rise faster than previously expected over the next five years while production slips, threatening a supply crunch.

"Demand is growing and as people become accustomed to higher prices they are starting to return to their previous trends of high consumption," said Lawrence Eagles, the head of oil markets analysis at the Paris-based International Energy Agency. "It's important that we have more investment and a greater emphasis on energy efficiency."

The pressures on fuel supplies are growing because booming Asian economies are using more fuel to power their prospering manufacturing industries and to supply growing numbers of automobiles amid a spurt in consumerism.

Rapid growth of the petrochemicals sector and low-cost airlines are other important factors lifting demand.

Supplies are being squeezed by a scarcity of modern oil refining facilities as well as sufficient staff to operate them. Supplies also are a concern because of deteriorating production of oil from countries outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the price-setting cartel operated by the world's biggest producers.


The world "needs more than three million barrels per day of new oil each year to offset the falling production in the mature fields outside of OPEC," Eagles said.

Analysts said that behind the overall numbers were signs that the energy habits of the planet were moving in two distinct directions.

In developed countries, and in particular in the European Union, obligations agreed to by governments to conserve energy and use renewable sources of energy - both to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to maintain energy security - are expected to ease pressure on oil supplies.

But that trend is being offset by rapidly developing nations. While they still consume far less energy per capita, they also are manufacturing goods for rich countries and increasingly are adopting heavily energy-consuming lifestyles, including air conditioners, refrigerators and cars.

"My view is that energy consciousness will figure strongly in Western countries and could contribute to demand decrease, but it's not at all sure that we will see the same trends in China and India," said Colette Lewiner, global leader for energy at Capgemini in Paris.

In its report, the International Energy Agency, which advises 26 industrialized countries, said that global oil demand would rise by an average 2.2 percent a year from 2007 to 2012, up from a forecast in February 2007 of 2 percent annually from 2006 to 2011.

Developing world and emerging industrialized economies will see their share of world oil consumption rise from 42 percent of global oil demand to 46 percent by 2012, the report said.

Eagles welcomed progress in Europe and Asia, where governments are mandating more efficient cars. He said that the "United States is very clearly coming to the point where there would be a landmark change in fuel efficiency policies."

He also welcomed ramped up investment in refining capacity across the world, saying that could help exert some downward pressure on prices over the next three years. But those effects are likely to be short-lived, Eagles said.

Beyond 2010, Eagles warned, "tightness in OPEC's spare capacity will reassert itself."

And by 2012, he said, there would either have to be limits on demand or additional supplies in order to avoid price increases.

Eagles also gave a stark warning that biofuels - a renewable source of energy produced from plants - were unlikely to be a quick, silver-bullet solution.

Factories to make biofuels are becoming commonplace but agricultural products that are the basis of the fuels are - like crude oil in some parts of the world - becoming scarcer.

Prices of this feedstock including corn, sugar, soybeans, wheat and palm oil have risen sharply, making the production of biofuels increasingly expensive.

"Although we have a lot of policy statements on biofuels in many countries, the policies and mandates aren't fully in place at this point so we are not sure that this supply is going to be there," Eagles said.

By 2012 biofuels will still only account for only 2 percent of global oil supplies, the International Energy Agency said.

Yet another factor weighing on fuel supplies is periodic but severe problems in supplies of cleaner-burning natural gas, which has supplanted fuel oil in many industries over the past quarter-century.

But natural catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita in 2005, which knocked out U.S. gas production, and political decisions such as when Russia turned off gas supplies to neighboring countries in 2006, have led to renewed demand for fuel oil - putting yet more pressure on oil supplies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm not as worried about coal as such, because I think we have sizeable additional reserves in the form of oil shale (reserves of coal-equivalent material) which can be burned in existing powerplants with little additional difficulty. Of course, strict rationing of powerplant uses of coal may be necessary while we work on mitigation.

But then, I've said that 10 - 15 years without power at home for the average American is not impossible on repeated occasions, something that Valdemar probably thinks is optimistic, and yet I've still gotten mobbed by angry people basically saying "how you dare you propose that everyone suffer so much!"

Well, believe me, if I was a goddess this wouldn't be happening, okay?

The world will go to hell before we even touch on the heavy oils to any real degree. You see Terrence "Zod" Stamp on Live Earth in Lahndon this weekend? People were shouting "Get on with it!" when he dared talk about climate change, proof if any was needed that people went there for music, some condescending talk on living conservatively by megastars and then going home to carry on regardless.

End of the world, end of the world, but some great prospects to expand your third quarter portfolio this year according to Bloomberg.

[SirNitram]

Power plants simply aren't the issue, at least in the US. You'll lose three percent of the grid(Oil plants) with a fifteen percent margin. Any loss of power will be from the wires being overloaded, which will get fixed in alot less than decades. Hell, currently planned natural gas additions to the grid will, per year, amount to more energy than will be lost by oil loss. So electricity is not the problem.

The problem comes from the rail system, which is insufficient and privately owned. Eminent Domain seizures and modernization into electrical lines are the most probable reactions, but I doubt it's gonna take up the 100+MWs it would take to blackout the grid, especially as nuke, hydro, and other power sources will still be being built.

There's plenty of problems, but one could at least try and crunch the numbers and focus on the ones that will exist.

[Lord Zentei]

Two years from now? Well, then you will probably be able to say "told ya", since this board will probably still exist at that point. I must admit to a greater optimism, though.

But with 100 years at current rates, the coal is sufficient to bridge the gap to nuclear.

At "present rates". The US military starts going at it, you can kiss that goodbye right away. Oil prices have gone from $10 to near $80 in 7 years, yet demand is growing. The IEA had to revise their estimates this year from 2% to 2.2% with further up revisions possible. No one is giving a shit.

What, 100 years of supplies, gone just like that? Nonsense. Though if the millitary sees fit to go after it, that requires such a plan to be vetted by the government, yes?

Yes, I figured in some thread or other that a 4-500 billion dollar or so a year coal project would be able to do that. Just over the current deficit for a decade or so. Will we feel a great pinch? Absolutely. But I'm skeptical on a Great Collapse being unavoidable.

If it was started a decade ago, sure. And if you don't see double-digit shrinkage in oil and gas supplied over a decade as being something of a problem, I can't imagine what would scare you.

That would be on account of me being skeptical of your near-term dates. Though I agree that a decade ago would have been nice.

Define "unsurvivable".

Current way of life going extinct, ending the trend started by the industrial revolution.

That is no small prediction -- and something that I find incredible. Production of artificial oil, though not sufficient to cover our current consumption, allows for a lot more than pre-industrial lifestyle.

I'd rather not go with the "told you so" because I've finally found a promising job with a biotech company that pays well and enables me to live in a pleasant country village with cats. All that looks quite naïve now.

Well, that remains to be seen: as I said, the time you are citing is less than half the current lifetime of the board. Though I wonder what sort of career you were to go for if the biotech one is unrealistic.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Power plants simply aren't the issue, at least in the US. You'll lose three percent of the grid(Oil plants) with a fifteen percent margin. Any loss of power will be from the wires being overloaded, which will get fixed in alot less than decades. Hell, currently planned natural gas additions to the grid will, per year, amount to more energy than will be lost by oil loss. So electricity is not the problem.

I'm talking about coal rationing so it lasts long enough for us to build all the alternative power sources we need when we run out of coal, too. Because that's going to happen a lot sooner than 100 years from now if demand skyrockets. Even with oil shale being burned in the furnaces as a stopgap replacement. And don't forget that building equipment for new nuclear and geothermal powerplants and wind turbines and so on requires energy which is not currently being used, energy which in this situation can only come in the form of electricity.

The problem comes from the rail system, which is insufficient and privately owned. Eminent Domain seizures and modernization into electrical lines are the most probable reactions, but I doubt it's gonna take up the 100+MWs it would take to blackout the grid, especially as nuke, hydro, and other power sources will still be being built.

We can build parallel grids servicing only the railroads. The same thing for for desalination equipment, ultimately, when we start having to mitigate global warming--hook the nuclear reactors up directly to massive desalination plants.

There's plenty of problems, but one could at least try and crunch the numbers and focus on the ones that will exist.

Look, the problem is more than peak oil, and so if we want to survive this we're going to have to factor in the other problems, like our limited coal available, and the political factors which will keep us from doing anything until the Great Depression has literally already happened all over again, and global warming happening in the same timeframe but the obvious solution being to increase coal use, which will result in even more global warming.

These problems do not exist in a vacuum.

[J]

If one believes the economists, once oil hits $80 (or was it $100?) a barrel the oil shales will become a viable and economically feasible resource, and 500 billion barrels worth of additional oil will become available from deep sea drilling and enhanced recovery methods. The Arabs will also stop hogging their oil and open up their oil fields for proper exploitation & development by the likes of BP and ExxonMobil, which will undoubtedly add a quarter trillion barrels to existing reserves. There's nothing to worry about, and there has never been anything to worry about, and this supposed oil shortage is all the fault of the Arabs and fear-mongering by peak oil loonies. Remember, we have at least 5 trillion barrels of oil and we've barely used 20% of it, we'll be fine for at least the next 50-100 years.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What, 100 years of supplies, gone just like that? Nonsense. Though if the millitary sees fit to go after it, that requires such a plan to be vetted by the government, yes?

No, not just like that, but near enough. The US has long since peaked in energy content, so each extra tonne of coal has less and less energy and the rule of 72 means the more and more you ramp up the output, the less it will last. To replace oil and gas, you've got probably a decade, maybe slightly more. A lot of coal won't ever leave the ground because it's too dangerous or expensive to move, the same problem is plaguing the UK fields.

That would be on account of me being skeptical of your near-term dates. Though I agree that a decade ago would have been nice.

Keep in mind, the IEA and most organisations like them (the EIA, CERA, Bloomberg, WSJ etc.) were predicting a peak maybe around 2040, or later. Think about that and then consider why I don't trust the gov't to save our skins or free market capitalism.

That is no small prediction -- and something that I find incredible. Production of artificial oil, though not sufficient to cover our current consumption, allows for a lot more than pre-industrial lifestyle.

So the collapse of the economy is something incredible? Why? An economy as we have now cannot function without constant growth, something I've spoke at length on. The current massive inflation and rising prices in commodities from food to copper to land is all down to energy. And artificial oil isn't saving you. Not unless you know where you can get 86 mbpd and more onstream in, oh, about a decade.

Synoil has NEVER gotten anywhere near that amount. The Nazi Germany and South Africa examples are totally meaningless and just as full of misplaced hope as oil shale which has been striving to free us from the Middle-East for cheap oil since '46.

Well, that remains to be seen: as I said, the time you are citing is less than half the current lifetime of the board. Though I wonder what sort of career you were to go for if the biotech one is unrealistic.

If I had the money? I'd go off the grid and live on a remote farm. Any accumulated wealth from playing the markets now needs to be converted to real wealth such as PV cells, food stores and water. When the economy dives, your billions in greenbacks if you're someone like Bill Gates, are worth more as fuel for the bonfire.

And anyone thinking gas will takeover, think again. Iran and Brazil along with numerous other nations already jumped on the NG powered cars and infrastructure band wagon. NG prices are rising and output will peak just after oil, Russia's Gazprom wishing to be the first company on Earth to be worth a trillion dollars notwithstanding, they have yet to show they can meet future demand. Fun thing about gas is it just abruptly stops one day. Oil gives you a warning with reduced output, gas just shuts off without any hint. Not that the US would get any anyway. You don't have Canada to rely on for much longer, which means LNG tankers and loading docks, which are in short supply and cost hundreds of billions to bring about and decades to install for what is needed. And why should Asia and Europe feed the US? What does the US offer the world but niche electronic products and services? I can't eat iPods and elite banking options, so the US is meaningless to me.

[J]

On a related note, Brent Crude is about 60 cents a barrel below its all-time high during the Israel-Lebanon conflict last year. Depending on what the US DOE inventory reports says in about 17 hours, we could very likely see an all-time high by this time tomorrow.

[Lord Zentei]

No, not just like that, but near enough. The US has long since peaked in energy content, so each extra tonne of coal has less and less energy and the rule of 72 means the more and more you ramp up the output, the less it will last. To replace oil and gas, you've got probably a decade, maybe slightly more. A lot of coal won't ever leave the ground because it's too dangerous or expensive to move, the same problem is plaguing the UK fields.

So, 100 years = a decade? Colour me sceptical. The 100 years was a downgrade of earlier estimates of 200+ years due to the factors you are citing.

Keep in mind, the IEA and most organisations like them (the EIA, CERA, Bloomberg, WSJ etc.) were predicting a peak maybe around 2040, or later. Think about that and then consider why I don't trust the gov't to save our skins or free market capitalism.

Yes: they also claimed that the oil peak would be a long series of crests and troughs, rather than a peak and then a sudden dip; something that they're still claiming.

That is no small prediction -- and something that I find incredible. Production of artificial oil, though not sufficient to cover our current consumption, allows for a lot more than pre-industrial lifestyle.

So the collapse of the economy is something incredible? Why? An economy as we have now cannot function without constant growth, something I've spoke at length on. The current massive inflation and rising prices in commodities from food to copper to land is all down to energy. And artificial oil isn't saving you. Not unless you know where you can get 86 mbpd and more onstream in, oh, about a decade.

Synoil has NEVER gotten anywhere near that amount. The Nazi Germany and South Africa examples are totally meaningless and just as full of misplaced hope as oil shale which has been striving to free us from the Middle-East for cheap oil since '46.

Prediction of collapse to pre-industrial levels is a prediction of unprescedented calamity. I should think that it is clear that such a prediction would be met with some skepticism. And bollocks to the idea that the economy cannot function without constant growth; we've already seen slowdown over the past decades.

Well, that remains to be seen: as I said, the time you are citing is less than half the current lifetime of the board. Though I wonder what sort of career you were to go for if the biotech one is unrealistic.

If I had the money? I'd go off the grid and live on a remote farm. Any accumulated wealth from playing the markets now needs to be converted to real wealth such as PV cells, food stores and water. When the economy dives, your billions in greenbacks if you're someone like Bill Gates, are worth more as fuel for the bonfire. <SNIP SNIP>

Back to the middle ages, eh? Sorry, you lost me there. I see stagnation but this is way off the mark.


PS: Incidentally I'm not an American.

[Mr Flibble]

Well this is certainly believable. Both the company I work for and the one my brother works for are in the oil exploration industry and all indications are that we are getting near to the peak at the very least. We are certainly getting a lot of interest in what are regarded as 'marginal' areas.

The only good thing I can think about this situation for me is that I'm in perhaps the one industry that might benefit from this. We are certainly doing our best to find what is left, but we are pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Admiral Valdemar]

So, 100 years = a decade? Colour me sceptical. The 100 years was a downgrade of earlier estimates of 200+ years due to the factors you are citing.

It really doesn't matter all that much about reserves in the end anyway, since we still have a trillion barrels of oil in the ground. The problem is delivering the goods, and coal isn't coming out any quicker than oil or gas. The global oil industry (including national companies) are cancelling projects left, right and centre because a) the prices are going through the roof, b) there isn't the manpower.

All those proposing we build huge wind farms or solar farms and electric railways: where are you getting the money from? Where's the manpower coming from? Industry is stretched to breaking point today to the point that making a refinery is a decision that is seriously considered by Big Oil, one of the wealthiest, if not, the wealthiest sectors in the world. They can't find the people to build them even if they weren't going up in price every month thanks to increased prices for iron, copper, zinc and so on. It's all very well saying you'll do this and that, but in the real world, you need the moolah and expertise to make dreams reality. I'd love to have a thousand pebble-bed reactors online next year. Guess what? Ain't happening. The law of receding horizons is making what was supposed to be cheaper as oil rose, ever more costly, because oil rising in price means all things rise in price. Remember, no one ever went starving because of lack of food. Lack of money, however...

None of which even touches on the main problem: too many humans. So you delay an energy crunch by a few decades, big deal.

For the US to replace its oil input with synthetic in any meaningful timescale is wholly unrealistic. The US gov't hasn't even admitted there's an issue yet.

Yes: they also claimed that the oil peak would be a long series of crests and troughs, rather than a peak and then a sudden dip; something that they're still claiming.

I think at this point I'll just reiterate that I really don't care what they say either way. That they didn't even manage to actually say "We're on the downslope now, lads. Better cash in while you can" is indicative of them beating around the bush. This peaks and troughs things has been going on since 2003-4. It's now beyond the undulating plateaux.

Prediction of collapse to pre-industrial levels is a prediction of unprescedented calamity. I should think that it is clear that such a prediction would be met with some skepticism. And bollocks to the idea that the economy cannot function without constant growth; we've already seen slowdown over the past decades.

Slowdown? Slowdown is less growth. Even the greatest financial clusterfuck in history, the Great Depression, was a short period of contraction, followed by very, very slow growth which would still be going now had WWII not happily placed the US as de facto superpower. To equate a recession with a shrinking energy environment is to equate a schoolyard fight with the Napoleonic Wars.

And what's wrong with a prediction of unprecedented calamity? You can't comprehend it, ergo, it must not be true? That's very Creationist. I can't believe it took FEMA five days to get water to the superbowl, but hey, shit happens.

Back to the middle ages, eh? Sorry, you lost me there. I see stagnation but this is way off the mark.

Because things will go well when there is less and less energy and hyperinflation? I suggest you fly over to Zimbabwe or Senegal or Pakistan and tell them them to stop being such sissies just because their economies are imploding from lack of energy fueling them.

PS: Incidentally I'm not an American.

That makes baby Jesus cry.