Peak Oil at 2014?

31-07-2010 1:34pm

coletti wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember being told in the 1970 that oil was running out, and that it would all be used up by the year 2000.

We're not at 2010 and, if you talk to the exploration companies, they tell us there is plenty of oil to last a very long time.

It suits them to start scarcity stories as that puts the price up and makes them enormous amounts of profits.

Is "peak oil" the 2010 equivalent of the "oil running out" stories of the 1970's?

Peak oil does not equal oil running out!

What it means is the fact that it can't be extracted quickly and cheaply anymore.
There is an estimated 40 years left at current consumption rates, the problem is that they can't get it out any quicker. Drilling more wells only has a limited effect, drilling in more and more difficult and dangerous places alos is of limited help. Tar sands and other low grade oils are being extracted more and more but these are very hard on the environment.

Because of these issues, and many others, the days of cheap (ish) and plentiful oil are over. One of the contributary factors in the recession was high oil prices.

Capt'n Midnight · 31-07-2010 1:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Peak oil does not equal oil running out!

What it means is the fact that it can't be extracted quickly and cheaply anymore.

Most of the oil is still in the ground for some wells the extraction rate was as low as 1/3

we have tar sands too, and methane hydrates , they just aren't quite as cheap as oil

coletti · 02-08-2010 5:30pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There is an estimated 40 years left at current consumption rates, the problem is that they can't get it out any quicker. .

There is an estimated 40 years left if (i) No more oil is discovered (ii) We don't become more efficient in the use of oil and (iii) we don't use the oil we have discovered but is currently either more difficult or more expensive to get at.

No one is arguing that we should become more dependant on oil, but we also have to realise that there is a lot of it about, and that it's not running out any time soon.

02-08-2010 8:58pm

coletti wrote: »

There is an estimated 40 years left if (i) No more oil is discovered (ii) We don't become more efficient in the use of oil and (iii) we don't use the oil we have discovered but is currently either more difficult or more expensive to get at.

No one is arguing that we should become more dependant on oil, but we also have to realise that there is a lot of it about, and that it's not running out any time soon.

Good points, but the assumptions that 40 years are based on can't be relied on to be accurate, for starters they assume OPEC countries are truthful about viable reserves, growth in China and India will "eat" into the 40 years.

Future discoveries will tend to be small and difficult/expensive to exploit.

China & India are aggressively buying up any surplus supplies and locking up future supply for themselves. Doing so will mean a diminishing supply available to western countries, meaning the "peak oil effect" will be felt much sooner here, the unstable open market price being an indicator of that already.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-08-2010 9:59pm

coletti wrote: »

There is an estimated 40 years left if (i) No more oil is discovered (ii) We don't become more efficient in the use of oil and (iii) we don't use the oil we have discovered but is currently either more difficult or more expensive to get at.

As you can see relatively little oil was used before 1950

The growth of oil usage through transport is worse than the graph shows since a lot of oil fired power stations changed to gas/coal and doesn't take into account the billion consumers in India and China that will aspire to the same fuel usage as us.

03-08-2010 4:57am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As you can see relatively little oil was used before 1950

The growth of oil usage through transport is worse than the graph shows since a lot of oil fired power stations changed to gas/coal and doesn't take into account the billion consumers in India and China that will aspire to the same fuel usage as us.

That chart clearly shows that "king coal" will regain it's crown for a while, but it doesn't show the energy generated from the coal.
I believe that most of the coal currently mined for power generation is the lower grade brown coal, very dirty hence the spike in CO2.

Recent advances in Gas extraction may allow for more growth for a while as well.

edit: just came across this article http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/08/peakcoal-20100802.html#more

Study Concludes “Peak Coal” Will Occur Close to 2011
2 August 2010
A multi-Hubbert analysis of coal production by Tadeusz Patzek at The University of Texas at Austin and Gregory Croft at the University of California, Berkeley concludes that the global peak of coal production from existing coalfields will occur close to the year 2011. The HHV of global production is likely to peak in 2011 at 160 EJ/y, and the peak carbon emissions from coal burning will also peak in 2011 at 4.0 Gt C (15 Gt CO2) per year, according to the study.

....

The most important conclusion of this paper is that the peak of global coal production from the existing coalfields is imminent, and coal production from these areas will fall by 50% in the next 40 years. The CO2 emissions from burning this coal will also decline by 50%. Thus, current focus on carbon capture and geological sequestration may be misplaced. Instead, the global community should be devoting its attention to conservation and increasing efficiency of electrical power generation from coal.

Original article (behind paywall for full details)

old_aussie · 03-08-2010 7:33am

Middle class peope in India who can now afford a car will drive demand for oil.

boc123 · 03-08-2010 9:16am

old_aussie wrote: »

Middle class peope in India who can now afford a car will drive demand for oil.

If the supply can't keep up with the demand there is nothing anyone can do.
Price just went over $81 today.

Also received Richard Heinbergs latest Muse letter, quite depressing...

03-08-2010 9:48am

boc123 wrote: »

If the supply can't keep up with the demand there is nothing anyone can do.
Price just went over $81 today.

Also received Richard Heinbergs latest Muse letter, quite depressing...

Price controlled rationing comes into play, for oil sold on the open market.

Most western countries have experienced oil "demand destruction" in recent years, Ireland has dropped 10% since 2006, this trend is likely to continue as alternatives are found or certain tasks are simply ceased! (recession leading to depression)

That's why China and India are being very aggressive in buying (cash or goods up front, I believe) future supplies with countries that the west have difficulty in dealing with, Iran & Venezuela for example.

recedite · 07-08-2010 12:24pm

The oil price rises around 2008, peak production of easy to reach oil around 2007, and the recession/credit crunch are all related IMO.
From now on we are looking at the end of "growth" in the economy. We are into an era of expensive oil. But peak oil extraction in absolute terms can only be determined after it has happened. Just like the market top in house prices. Both depend on how much people are willing to pay.

07-08-2010 5:24pm

Richard Heinberg talking about the economic fallout from peak oil, (in the past tense) he believes we are already over the hump!

He's not even considering the affects rapidly increasing gas and coal extraction & consumption will have in slowing down the slowdown in growth or even return to growth. China has a large stash of Dollars, so therefore can buy fuel from anywhere by easily outbidding the west if necessary.

But elsewhere we see that even these fuels are finite resources and the extraction rates limiting factors as well.

I think that global growth will stop when we reach "peak FF", when will that be? 2015, 2020 who knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3uusu4KTKo

recedite · 08-08-2010 1:05pm

I'm hoping that eventually someone will unlock the secrets to safe clean nuclear power; Fusion.
In the meantime though, we are right, here in Ireland, to focus on more renewables.

shoegirl · 08-08-2010 9:19pm

Its impossible to know when peak oil will occur (and it probably will eventually).

The reason being that precise information as to exploration, field capacity, extraction data, etc, is all a closed guarded commercial secret, shared between dozens if not hundreds of different companies. Even the handful of exploration specialists probably don't have sufficient information to complete a full metaanalysis of existing sources and likely future supplies.

Another issue is the question of rejuvenating older fields, new uses for formerly useless by products and more efficient production methods and extraction processes. A lot of what is extracted is wasted - this is likely to change. Technology is changing fast in this field.

One way or another, mankind will be forced to use other forms of fuel for energy. What I would be more concerned about is the paucity of water supplies in many regions.

maninasia · 09-08-2010 4:02am

shoegirl wrote: »

Its impossible to know when peak oil will occur (and it probably will eventually).

The reason being that precise information as to exploration, field capacity, extraction data, etc, is all a closed guarded commercial secret, shared between dozens if not hundreds of different companies. Even the handful of exploration specialists probably don't have sufficient information to complete a full metaanalysis of existing sources and likely future supplies.

Another issue is the question of rejuvenating older fields, new uses for formerly useless by products and more efficient production methods and extraction processes. A lot of what is extracted is wasted - this is likely to change. Technology is changing fast in this field.

One way or another, mankind will be forced to use other forms of fuel for energy. What I would be more concerned about is the paucity of water supplies in many regions.

A lot of their information may not be accurate or correct, it is only a model after all.

boc123 · 10-08-2010 8:15pm

Very interesting dialogue between Dr Samsam Bakhtiari and the Australian government given in 2006.

YFlyer · 11-08-2010 2:19pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that most of the coal currently mined for power generation is the lower grade brown coal, very dirty hence the spike in CO2.

The dirty brown coal or lignite would have a much higher ash content than higher grades coal such as Anthracite. The higher ash content would not contribute to extra CO2. It would be inefficient scrubbers in the chimney stacks at the power stations.

Shatner · 11-08-2010 2:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Peak oil does not equal oil running out!

What it means is the fact that it can't be extracted quickly and cheaply anymore.
There is an estimated 40 years left at current consumption rates, the problem is that they can't get it out any quicker. Drilling more wells only has a limited effect, drilling in more and more difficult and dangerous places alos is of limited help. Tar sands and other low grade oils are being extracted more and more but these are very hard on the environment.

Because of these issues, and many others, the days of cheap (ish) and plentiful oil are over. One of the contributary factors in the recession was high oil prices.

Thank you. I don't ever hear anyone saying this but the rise in oil prices (and resultant increases in food prices, utilities etc.) was the key factor in the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and the credit crunch. Everyone seems to believe it's because house prices increased so rapidly.

12-08-2010 7:45am

Shatner wrote: »

Thank you. I don't ever hear anyone saying this but the rise in oil prices (and resultant increases in food prices, utilities etc.) was the key factor in the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and the credit crunch. Everyone seems to believe it's because house prices increased so rapidly.

It's one of the consequences on having a financial model that required infinite per capita growth to function, that growth needs energy!
When the cost of that energy rises, relative to the work performed then the profit margins get squeezed, resulting in less growth! Financial institutions need growth, can't get it from industry anymore - even with offshoring all the work, so create "growth" with reckless lending.

A property boom is created in several countries, they run out of mugs homebuyers, so start to lend to people who would have never even been allowed in through the bank's doors let alone given a mortgage. As expected, the default rate is high, unfortunately for the banks it's higher than expected weakening the market and causing a couple of firms to fold, then a spike in oil prices tips the whole banking sector over the edge!

Prabhu Deva · 12-08-2010 1:32pm

So which day in 2014 will peak oil occur? it only happens once ever and I don't want to miss it.

boc123 · 12-08-2010 2:12pm

Prabhu Deva wrote: »

So which day in 2014 will peak oil occur? it only happens once ever and I don't want to miss it.

March 12th at 13.30. I think Sky news will be showing it

On a serious note many people say it has already occurred. Anywhere from 2005 to 2010. You will miss it, it won't be known until after it happens. You will however see the consequences of it.

12-08-2010 3:01pm

boc123 wrote: »

March 12th at 13.30. I think Sky news will be showing it

On a serious note many people say it has already occurred. Anywhere from 2005 to 2010. You will miss it, it won't be known until after it happens. You will however see the consequences of it.

We can't be certain the peak has passed, but we can clearly see that the rate of production has stopped rising in line with expectations neccessary to ensure economic growth, we have also seen what effects "hitting the ceiling" have on oil prices and we have already seen the economic turmoil caused by unstable oil prices.

18-09-2010 5:28pm

It seems that an increasing number of commentators are starting to see "peak oil" in the rear view mirror.

The Truth Behind Peak Oil…

Yep, sitting here in downtown Baltimore, we had nothing better to do. So we made the whole thing up. Peak oil isn’t real. It’s a fake. We have so much oil in the world remaining, there’s no way we’ll ever run out. So on behalf of peak oil theorists… you’re right. We’re wrong.
We apologize… Let’s move on. We can’t keep this going any more.
And if you believe that… I’ve got some swamp land and a nice bridge to sell you.
Peak oil is real. Get over it. The only thing worth arguing over with its reality is the definition of it.
Peak oil does not mean the world is running out of oil. Stop throwing that garbage around. We have three trillion barrels of oil in the United States alone.
Peak oil refers to the flow rates. It refers to the fact that the “easy to get to” oil is gone. It’s the “hard to reach” oil that we now have to go after.
Why do you think BP was drilling so deep in the Gulf? Because they felt like it?
“You want us to believe peak oil is real… that we’re really running out of oil left on the planet. That’s alarmist conspiracy garbage you’re using to sell newsletters. It’s not real. Move on.” — John L.
“Peak oil doesn’t exist. We have more oil supply now than at any time in the last 27 years… World oil reserves have increased. Spare capacity has increased. We’re not running out of oil. Stop the BS. Do you even look at the data or do you just ‘know’ oil is running out? This article you wrote is complete garbage. At one point in your peak oil article, you say it’s real. At another point of the article you talk about the largest oil deposits on the planet. Sounds like a contradiction. Which is it, genius?” — Mark S.
All I have to say, John and Mark, is this: You have it all wrong.
I understand why people won’t listen to peak oil theories. They’re skeptical of radical schools of thought, opting instead to listen to “experts” who say everything is okay, that oil will keep flowing for decades to come.
But it simply isn’t so.
Peak oil does not mean the world is running out of oil; it means we’ve peaked as far as finding cheap oil supply.
And we don’t believe the world will just “eventually” run out of cheap oil in 10 to 12 years. It’s already happening.
Peak oil critics don’t fully grasp the concept of peak oil is —which is also a common problem among the public. People are confusing peak oil with oil running out in the world.
That’s not what’s happening here…
Peak oil refers to the peak in flow rates of oil, and the inability to find oil on the cheap. (Why do you think BP was drilling so deep offshore?)
The United States has already reached its peak oil date. In fact most oil producing countries have reached their production peaks — and the good ole days of discovering easily accessible, conventional crude are behind us.
Sure, there’s oil in the tar sands in Canada, and heavy oil and oil shale in the world — but it’s pricey and, more oft than not, difficult to get to.
In the next few years, John and Mark, you’ll see just how real peak oil is when you’re sitting in the gasoline line…
But, hey, I still appreciate the comments. Please send your thoughts if you disagree with our side of the argument.
No amount of pointless, incorrect drivel from the mouths of critics will stop peak oil. We have passed peak oil.
And no amount of technology will change the fact that the United States uses close to 20 million barrels of oil a day — and growing.
The era of cheap oil is gone
According to the IEA’s latest oil report (published in August 2010), global demand will reach 86.6 million barrels per day this year… and is expected to hit 87.9 million barrels per day in 2011. That means demand could pass an all-time high of 86.9 million barrels per day of 2008.
And we haven’t even come close to the demand of countries like China, India, and Latin America…
The era of cheap oil really is over… done… kaput.
Every barrel that will come to market will be much more difficult to produce, and therefore much more expensive.
Just ask U.S. oil experts, Germany, England — they are all fearful of this fact. Ask respected analyst Charles Maxwell.
Peak oil isn’t real?
Get over it. As if we’d be dumb enough to make this stuff up…
That’s like saying we want to get sued by the SEC for oil price manipulation.
Don’t believe me? Sit out… miss the profits. Cry about it later. We’re trying to help you make money. Period. I don’t have time to make up mythical stories of peak oil, rare earth, unicorns, and rainbows.
Wealth Daily

recedite · 18-09-2010 8:53pm

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

Not sure if I'm reassured by the Bundeswehr (formerly the Wehrmacht)taking such an interest in all this. Ah well, at least they'll be on our side next time, hopefully.

18-09-2010 10:47pm

recedite wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

Not sure if I'm reassured by the Bundeswehr (formerly the Wehrmacht)taking such an interest in all this. Ah well, at least they'll be on our side next time, hopefully.

The phrase "we're all in the same boat" springs to mind, pity it's the Titanic and the iceberg (peak fossil fuel) is looming large.

The only way to avoid a disaster will be to adopt a low energy lifestyle, and it won't be easy or fun!

Mike 1972 · 08-10-2010 3:11pm

People confuse the concept of "peak oil" with "running out of oil"

The former is real but the latter is (to some extent) a fallacy

The world will never "run out of oil". The stuff will always be around but fewer and fewer people will be able to afford it.

recedite wrote: »

I'm hoping that eventually someone will unlock the secrets to safe clean nuclear power; Fusion.

Regardless of whether peak oil is set to happen in 2015, 2055 or 2005 it still represents a powerful argument for us to move away from oil based energy NOW because regardless of what new energy/transport technologies we come up with we are still going to need oil for the chemical, plastics and pharmaceutical industries.

In decades to come people will regard the fact that we actually BURN something as valuable as oil as evidence of our generations collective insanity.

Peak oil is at least as compelling a reason for moving away from an oil-based economy as climate change.

coletti wrote: »

There is an estimated 40 years left if (i) No more oil is discovered (ii) We don't become more efficient in the use of oil and (iii) we don't use the oil we have discovered but is currently either more difficult or more expensive to get at. .

4) The worlds population stops increasing aroundabout now
5) Corporations stop thinking of new stuff to flog to western consumers
6) People in non-western countries stop aspiring to improve their lot and emulate western consumers
7) Jet engines are phased out in favour of pig drawn aircraft

PaulGogartyTD · 09-10-2010 8:44pm

The sooner we move away from oil the better because the longer we procrastinate the more expensive it will be to move away. The current global recession has affected demand but this will only slow the inexorable rise upwards

10-10-2010 2:04am

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

The sooner we move away from oil the better because the longer we procrastinate the more expensive it will be to move away. The current global recession has affected demand but this will only slow the inexorable rise upwards

So true, but it is really important to realise that oil is not the only fossil fuel that has a peak, all the others will also soon peak.

After the global peak in fossil fuel, then mankind will be forced to learn to do wit less! and that means everything (energywise), that peak could be as soon as 2015 according to some reports. Oil is recorded as peaking in late 2005, those production figures have not been exceeded since despite a change in the recording rules in oil output to include certain by-products that recorded 2008 as the highest output year.

The current economic decline (in some countries) is the second phase in the global decline of energy consumption. The first being the decline in new oil reserves.

Mike 1972 · 10-10-2010 11:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So true, but it is really important to realise that oil is not the only fossil fuel that has a peak, all the others will also soon peak.

Of course gas and coal will peak as well but oil will peak first (of course until CCS is perfected we dont want a massive switchback to coal while the gas peak will probably jump forward as increasing oil prices force a mass switch to gas)

Its not just fossil fuels that are an issue though. Uranium also has supply constraints too (some have suggested thorium as a substitute but this feasibility of this has yet to be fully proven) along with all manner of other metals, minerals and other raw materials.

During the second world war Germany attempted to overcome their fuel shortages by producing oil from coal (particularly as countries they had invaded primarily for their oil reserves were liberated). Could this technology make a comeback ?

17-10-2010 9:24am

A very informative article on the oil drum.http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7044

Congressional Briefing: Can Oil Production Meet Rising Demand?

Posted by Gail the Actuary on October 15, 2010 - 10:30am
Topic: Policy/Politics
On Thursday, October 7, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) conducted a congressional briefing on challenges of the oil industry to keep pace with rising global demand, and the potential implications for oil prices, national security and the world economy.
The panelists included a combination of some people in Washington DC for the ASPO-USA meeting (Robert Hirsch, Tad Patzek, and Arthur Berman) and some people currently or recently involved with government offices (including Franklin Rusco, Director of Energy at the GAO, and Guy Caruso, Former Administrator of the EIA). I found it especially interesting that the latter two, especially Guy Caruso, were concerned about oil supply. As head of the EIA from 2002 to 2008, Guy Caruso did not seem to voice these concerns.

This video can be found at Can Oil Production Meet Rising Demand? An mp3 recording and copies of presentations can be found at the EESI site. Below the fold I show some of the slides and mention a few of the comments made by the presenters.

The overall theme of the presentations seemed to be that there are many types of risks that supply will be inadequate to meet demand--rising demand from emerging economies, inadequate investment, and oil that cannot be pulled out of the ground fast enough, even though the appearance is that there is plenty of oil available. The result is likely to be high prices leading to recession. Alternatives are not scaling up quickly enough to be likely to be very helpful for a very long time - 25 years according to Art Berman.

Summary: the lights won't be going out for sometime yet, but you may eventually have to walk!

09-11-2010 8:57pm

IEA%20Press%20Release%20-%20Slide%208.png

The above scenario shows conventional crude oil on a plateau to 2035 at a level below recent production. This graph is from the "New Policies" scenario, so reflects some cutback in demand as a result of governmental policies from what the reference scenario would assume.

IEA still in la-la land look at the decline and then the sudden expected increase caused by "crude oil - fields yet to be developed or found"

15-11-2010 9:26pm

Oil Demand to Decline in the West, according to International Energy Agency
Posted by Phil Hart on November 15, 2010 - 2:13pm in The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: iea, oil demand, weo 2010
For those addicted to more roads, airports and the sweet smell of gasoline, the IEA's 2010 World Energy Outlook includes some pretty sober reading.
As they did in last year's Outlook, the IEA forecasts that OECD demand for oil has already peaked. Consumption of oil in the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia and other 'developed' OECD nations is set to decline permanently, starting about.. now.

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/7114#more

More and more people are calling the peak, it's only a matter of time before economists start to take it seriously. Any future growth wil not be on the back of rising oil supply as it has been for the past 100 years!

16-12-2010 1:18am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfIftQG8Wr0

Footage from Colin Campbell in 2002 and Richard Heinberg in 2003.

Do you think they got it right!

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 12:11am

PaulGogartyTD wrote: »

The sooner we move away from oil the better because the longer we procrastinate the more expensive it will be to move away. The current global recession has affected demand but this will only slow the inexorable rise upwards

The only thing that keeps increasing the price is your bloody taxes

petrol more than half the price in US

think of how many jobs that would create here removing the pointless taxes

no thats too simple for the greens :rolleyes:

20-12-2010 1:31am

The only thing you can really say about high fuel taxes, is that they prevent you spending the money elsewhere! One of the causes of the recession is that higher fuel costs have reduced the amount of disposable income available to use in leisure, home improvements or simply buying the latest made in China gizmo.

But at the same time you can't hide from the fact that most US vehicles have much poorer fuel consumption, just because it's cheaper to run over there.

As it stands, the cost of fuel is MUCH cheaper than the wages for a human to do similar work.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-12-2010 1:40am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

The only thing that keeps increasing the price is your bloody taxes

petrol more than half the price in US

think of how many jobs that would create here removing the pointless taxes

no thats too simple for the greens :rolleyes:

Think how much they would have to rise income tax to match the revenue short fall.

Also we have signed up to pay carbon tax if we exceed our exiting targets so increasing our fuel usage will cost us.

Fuel price is a fine balancing act, the greater the differential between ourselves and the UK the more people will cross the boarder to buy cheap fuel and the resulting tax revenue.

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 10:41am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Think how much they would have to rise income tax to match the revenue short fall.

Also we have signed up to pay carbon tax if we exceed our exiting targets so increasing our fuel usage will cost us.

Fuel price is a fine balancing act, the greater the differential between ourselves and the UK the more people will cross the boarder to buy cheap fuel and the resulting tax revenue.

The priority of our politicians should be to do everything to create jobs
this public representative has illustrated why they are incapable of doing so
he would rather follow their green ideology than remove the silly taxes (on top of other taxes) on fuels, a move that would help every single business in the country and create jobs.

At least the americans have their priorities right, while we are wasting our time on the carbon scam they are taking care of their own citizens,
tho i suppose thats an alien concept to a government here that signed away billions to NAMA and lost control of the country for the sake of bondholders.

20-12-2010 10:52am

ei.sdraob wrote: »

At least the americans have their priorities right, while we are wasting our time on the carbon scam they are taking care of their own citizens,
tho i suppose thats an alien concept to a government here that signed away billions to NAMA and lost control of the country for the sake of bondholders.

I agree that the carbon is a scam, pure and simple! Job creation is going to be difficult while as you say the banks are taking all the spare income (via taxes). The biggest issue with jobs of course is low Chinese wages & cheap transportation of goods from China, it's impossible to compete!

Future oil scarcity changes the game completely.

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 12:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree that the carbon is a scam, pure and simple! Job creation is going to be difficult while as you say the banks are taking all the spare income (via taxes). The biggest issue with jobs of course is low Chinese wages & cheap transportation of goods from China, it's impossible to compete!

Future oil scarcity changes the game completely.

Who is responsible for handing money to the banks? yep the Greens

they had their chance to walk away from NAMA and bailouts triggering an election where the people of this country would have had a say in whether they want to support a party that will give money to the banks. Instead they supported NAMA and the bailouts of the banks.

now we are supposed to believe the Greens that their ideology is the correct one when they have already proven to cause so much damage to the country. sorry these people have no credibility left

edit: peak oil should be the least of our concerns at a time when the country has lost its sovereignty and has indebted future generations with heavy debt burden ,it is interesting to see Green representatives care and respond to such a minor issue when his government is responsible for the wholesale sellout of the nation. shame on you

recedite · 20-12-2010 1:13pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Fuel price is a fine balancing act, the greater the differential between ourselves and the UK the more people will cross the boarder to buy cheap fuel and the resulting tax revenue.

Petrol is more expensive in Norn Iron.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Who is responsible for handing money to the banks? yep the Greens

Strange that you don't blame FF for the actions of Cowen and Lenihan. Maybe you have voted for FF in the past and now find it hard to reconcile with yourself?

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 1:30pm

recedite wrote: »

Strange that you don't blame FF for the actions of Cowen and Lenihan. Maybe you have voted for FF in the past and now find it hard to reconcile with yourself?

If you bothered to read my posts on this site you would see that i place plenty of blame on corrupt FF too

except the Greens had a chance to walk away and trigger an election long time ago, but they decided to side with FF for their own benefit
country be damned, now we have a representative from them telling us how "long term thinking" is so important after his party and their partners managed to sell out the country and lost its independence due to their policies

where was his long term thinking when he voted for NAMA and the bailouts :rolleyes:

20-12-2010 1:53pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

edit: peak oil should be the least of our concerns at a time when the country has lost its sovereignty and has indebted future generations with heavy debt burden ,it is interesting to see Green representatives care and respond to such a minor issue when his government is responsible for the wholesale sellout of the nation. shame on you

Peak oil is one of the reasons why the bailout debt will never be repaid, well without massive QE (money printing) resulting in hyperinflation with a hamburger costing 495,000 (go large for only 40,000).:rolleyes:

Macha · 20-12-2010 1:56pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

If you bothered to read my posts on this site you would see that i place plenty of blame on corrupt FF too

except the Greens had a chance to walk away and trigger an election long time ago, but they decided to side with FF for their own benefit
country be damned, now we have a representative from them telling us how "long term thinking" is so important after his party and their partners managed to sell out the country and lost its independence due to their policies

where was his long term thinking when he voted for NAMA and the bailouts :rolleyes:

This is not the forum for talk of NAMA or this sort of politics talk. Keep it for the Politics form please.

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 2:49pm

Macha wrote: »

This is not the forum for talk of NAMA or this sort of politics talk. Keep it for the Politics form please.

Without the political and economic dimension, sustainability threads descend into fantasy land. All of these are connected considering the policy and future of this country are being shaped by politicians using economic arguments based environmental/sustainability issues

If you wish to have a shallow discussion and let this public representative get away with flunking it, then that's fine its your forum I am not going to argue with that anymore. Maybe if we question and demanded more from our elected officials instead of burying our heads in sand, we would not be where we are today

Deleted User wrote: »

Peak oil is one of the reasons why the bailout debt will never be repaid, well without massive QE (money printing) resulting in hyperinflation with a hamburger costing 495,000 (go large for only 40,000).:rolleyes:

like to scaremonger much? this is the type of "posts" we get when basic economics is thrown out the window when the environmental issues are discussed.

Macha · 20-12-2010 3:07pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Without the political and economic dimension, sustainability threads descend into fantasy land. All of these are connected considering the policy and future of this country are being shaped by politicians using economic arguments based environmental/sustainability issues

If you wish to have a shallow discussion and let this public representative get away with flunking it, then that's fine its your forum I am not going to argue with that anymore. Maybe if we question and demanded more from our elected officials instead of burying our heads in sand, we would not be where we are today

like to scaremonger much? this is the type of "posts" we get when basic economics is thrown out the window when the environmental issues are discussed.

You're long enough in the tooth to know that in-thread moderation is not allowed.

ei.sdraob · 20-12-2010 3:17pm

Macha wrote: »

You're long enough in the tooth to know that in-thread moderation is not allowed.

I provided my opinion that without looking at the wider picture, the discussions are shallow and lacking balance.

If you want it that way then that's fine I will not debate anymore here, you can continue patting each other on the back and waving your heads in agreement.

Macha · 20-12-2010 3:22pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I provided my opinion that without looking at the wider picture, the discussions are shallow and lacking balance.

If you want it that way then that's fine I will not debate anymore here, you can continue patting each other on the back and waving your heads in agreement.

*sigh* banned for 3 days for in-thread discussion of moderation. This isn't rocket science, ei.sdraob.

20-12-2010 5:51pm

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I provided my opinion that without looking at the wider picture, the discussions are shallow and lacking balance.

If you want it that way then that's fine I will not debate anymore here, you can continue patting each other on the back and waving your heads in agreement.

I think that most of agree that the affects of peak oil are going to be wide ranging, the economic situation being just one part.

The main issue will be the affects on day to day living of ordinary people, for example will you be forced to move nearer to work when the price reaches a certain level, or will fuel be rationed first.

There has already been a 10% decline in oil consumption since 2005 (much of that can be linked to the ending of the building boom), what affect on life would another 10% drop have?

Macha · 20-12-2010 6:21pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The main issue will be the affects on day to day living of ordinary people, for example will you be forced to move nearer to work when the price reaches a certain level, or will fuel be rationed first.

There are already worries about the social consequences of "accessibility-poor" areas of Ireland. If you live somewhere that is more than 15 mins walk away from any form of public transport and you're too young/old/sick/poor to drive, what do you do?

Capt'n Midnight · 20-12-2010 11:11pm

recedite wrote: »

Petrol is more expensive in Norn Iron.

A LOT of the petrol used in the north is bought this side of the boarder. The tax they pay subsidises our fuel costs down here, which increases our carbon contribution.

In industries like haulage where people undercut each other in a race to the bottom margins are so small that they are very vulnerable to fuel costs. At the other extreme RyanAir seem to be handling the huge increase in fuel costs quite well. Air travel is increadibly cheap by any historic measure and would remain so even if fuel costs were to double.

maninasia · 21-12-2010 8:30am

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree that the carbon is a scam, pure and simple! Job creation is going to be difficult while as you say the banks are taking all the spare income (via taxes). The biggest issue with jobs of course is low Chinese wages & cheap transportation of goods from China, it's impossible to compete!

Future oil scarcity changes the game completely.

It's not really the way I see it. You can't say Ireland, a high income country of 4-5 million people directly competes with a relatively poor country of 1.3 billion people.

The point is Ireland should use it's small size and flexibility to turn quickly and exploit new markets. We should be selling INTO China, not competing with China. That means software, food and natural products, educational services, branded luxury and consumer goods, farm engineering products etc. We should be a base for Chinese investment in Europe.

Even take Germany as an example. A quick look at the situation would have said that China and Germany are major competitors. That is true in one sense, yet German companies are doing massive business with China and Asia, Germany is flying as it's products and services are taken up in Asia.

You see China ultimately can be a force for job creation in Ireland. Look at Singapore, very similar to Ireland, record GDP this year, the place is going great guns even though it is 10X more expensive than China but it plays it's position well with links with China and also with SE Asia and N.America.

Peak Oil at 2014?

Comments