Peak oil a thing of the past

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not that any of the politicians currently running this country into the ground are going to do anything to increase alternative energy research.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Whose up for starting an Atlasian feudal barony somewhere in the great lakes if things go REALLY bad and we get a full collapse?

[Colin]

Cool, it's gonna be just like Road Warrior! I can't wait.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Cool, it's gonna be just like Road Warrior! I can't wait.

That analogy only works if you live in the southwest.

[Colin]

Cool, it's gonna be just like Road Warrior! I can't wait.

That analogy only works if you live in the southwest.

Or the Australian outback. Maybe Global Warming will turn the Midwest and Great Plains into a desert, then it would be complete Mel Gibson mania.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Cool, it's gonna be just like Road Warrior! I can't wait.

That analogy only works if you live in the southwest.

Or the Australian outback. Maybe Global Warming will turn the Midwest and Great Plains into a desert, then it would be complete Mel Gibson mania.

The midwest/great plains turning into desert isn't that unlikely actually(I see it as probable). It wouldn't be a stretch to see most of the north american interior south of the great lakes and south of the canadian border zones turning into desert and the gulf states getting a full tropical disease environment in a worst case scenario.

[Colin]

Cool, it's gonna be just like Road Warrior! I can't wait.

That analogy only works if you live in the southwest.

Or the Australian outback. Maybe Global Warming will turn the Midwest and Great Plains into a desert, then it would be complete Mel Gibson mania.

The midwest/great plains turning into desert isn't that unlikely actually(I see it as probable). It wouldn't be a stretch to see most of the north american interior south of the great lakes and south of the canadian border zones turning into desert and the gulf states getting a full tropical disease environment in a worst case scenario.

Well yes in a worst-case scenario I could see something like that occuring, though I doubt that malaria could come back to the South considering the lack of areas for malaria mosquitos to breed, due to large scale draining of lakes and swamps that occured in the 1950's. If the Ogallala Aquifer did dry up though, which is possible but I wouldn't bet my life on it at least within the next 50 years, the Great Plains could definitely get drier. I don't know about true desert outside of the high plains but it could become semi-arid.

[Person Man]

You mean the Red States becoming deserts and the blue states becoming city states?

"You break a deal, you get the wheel."

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Good point about the swamp draining but what about the national parks in the south? I'm sure quite a few of those are swampy enough for mosquitoes to do well especially if peak oil gets bad enough for us to have a generalized collapse for a few decades(possible but not IMO the most likely path). Even if the midwest/plains 'just' became semi-desert we'd have alot harder time growing food there. We'd probably have to start importing food from Canada(climate's imrpvoed) and doing agriculture in Alaska(warmer).

[Ban my account ffs!]

Natural oceanic temperature cycles have a large influence on drought frequency in the U.S.

The two biggest drivers here are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

The AMO has two phases:  Positive and Negative

Positive AMO:  Warmer than normal water in the Atlantic north of the equator.
     Effects:  More rain in Florida, less rain in the Plains/Southeast.  Increased hurricane development.

Negative AMO:  Cooler than normal water in the Atlantic.
    Effects:  Less rain in Florida, more in the plains/southeast.  Decreased hurricane development.


The PDO has two phases:  Positive and Negative

Positive PDO:  Colder than normal water in the northern Pacific.  Warmer than normal water over the equator.  This enhances El-Nino conditions and stifles La-Nina conditions.
      Effects:  More rain over the southwest and southeast.  Warmer winters in the north.  Drought in the Pacific Northwest.

Negative PDO:  Warm water in the northern Pacific.  Cooler than normal water over the equator.  This enhances La-Nina development and stifles El-Nino.
      Effects:  More rain in the Pacific Northwest and Northeast and the Ohio Valley.  Summer droughts are more common in the plains, but winter precipitation increases in the north.


These oscillations don't change together, but they both have their effects at the same time.

Below is a good picture that illustrates drought frequency around the country when the two oscillations are in different phases:




Below are the changes in the two oscillations.  Look at the map above and then think of the years that your area has had bad droughts and check with the indexes below:

1925-1945:  +PDO, +AMO (Dust bowl all through the plains)
1945-1962:  -PDO, +AMO  (Drought in the '50s in the central plains)
1962-1976:  -PDO, -AMO  (Winters in the Northeast/Midwest nasty)
1977-1994:  +PDO, -AMO  (Higher precip over the southwest.  High river levels in SW during '80s)
1995-1999:  +PDO, +AMO
1999-present -PDO, +AMO 

So, we're currently in a mode that was last seen from 1945-1962.  It is no surprise that the pattern that is currently affecting us is very similar to 1949 and 1955.

[Verily]

Did you mean to post that in a different thread, Snowguy? Because it has nothing to do with peak oil.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That graph is a little misleading, but still worrying.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Did you mean to post that in a different thread, Snowguy? Because it has nothing to do with peak oil.

No, I figured since claiming that the south and midwest would become deserts, I'd post information about drought frequency across the U.S.

And weather has just about everything to do with peak oil, because fuel demands invariably rise and fall with temperature fluctuations and droughts.

But I do agree, it does have little to do with the topic at hand.

[Bacon King]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the oil supply has actually peaked, it could possible that the downward trend is a result of temporary fluctuations. To really know, we'd have to see the data trends from further back.

Doesn't change the fact that we need to get away from fossil fuel usage though.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[*sigh*]

Demand has been flat for the last 18 months, so suppliers (e.g. OPEC) curbed production to match demand.  But now OPEC is hooked on higher prices so they are refusing to boost supply.

[Jake]

At least that crisis has passed. Phew.

[David S]

Well is it bad that we are running out of oil because we won't be able to drive cars as much or is it good because we won't be able to burn as much fossil fuel and produce more CO2?

Anyway there are other sources of oil that will probably keep us going for many years.

• Undiscovered oil fields such as the one recently found in Brazil,
  
• Tar sands
• Its also possible to make a gasoline substitute from coal. The Germans did it during WWII. And coal is abundant in the US.
  

Gas will cost more to produce in the future, but it will still be available.

[Person Man]

....but not feasible.

[David S]

....but not feasible.

I would wager that in 10 years gas will still be available and people will still be driving much the same as they are today. I am also willing to extend that wager to 20  years or more although that might be past my expiration date and you might have trouble collecting from a corpse.

[2952-0-0]

Undiscovered oil fields such as the one recently found in Brazil,

Never mind the fact that recently the ratio of new oil discoveries to consumption has reached 1:5 and will only increase. And not to mention that the OPEC countries are overstating the true size of their reserves to create an illusion of increased supply...why does Saudi Arabia keep the size of their reserves as a state secret? why didn't Kuwait reduce the size of their reserves with Saddam's troops burned 2 billion gallons of it in 1991?

[/quote]Tar sands[/quote]
The Athabasca tar sands are going through huge investments, yet they are only projected to produce 2.2 million barrels daily. The most optimistic estimates say 4 million by 2020. That's still a drop in the bucket considering that oil demand would reach 120 million by then. And there's already all this hype surrounding this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even ignoring peak oil, it's already estimated that US production of coal would peak within the next two decades (and that's not counting the fact that more demands in Asia would continue to drive the cost of coal up). Not to mention the decreasing efficiency of this new coal, and the environmental regulations that would prevent this new coal from being exploited.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Natural gas production has already plateaued in North America, and now only Russia, Qatar, and Algeria can export it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...if you don't mind living 50 miles from work and paying $15 per gallon for gasoline, by all means...

Here's a bit more food for thought...you have a petri dish with a limited amount of food, and a population of bacteria that doubles with every generation. Once half of the food is consumed, the bacteria still reproduce as if food were unlimited, but then they all die off soon after. I feel that we're like those bacteria, but only we don't die if oil runs in short supply. We go into a crisis like the one Russia went through 15 years ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

$137 a barrel oil is a symptom of peak oil. Too bad no one paid attention years ago when liberals were talking about peak oil.

[Albus Dumbledore]

But, but the free market!

[Jacobtm]

But, but the free market!

The free market doesn't mean that oil, a non-renewable resource, will always be cheap or available. When non-renewable resources are being used up, they become more and more expensive until it's cheaper to do what you need another way.

There's no way to make sure that non-renewable resources like oil are always available or cheap, the only two options besides having markets mechanisms to price and dole-out oil are:
1.) Keep oil subsidized and artificially cheap. This way more people can have it while it lasts, but it runs out quicker.
2.) Restrict use to ensure that oil will be around for a while. This way you have it in the future, but in the present it's unduly expensive and not everyone who wants/needs it has access to it.

Of course, the market for oil is victim of many price-raising distortions.

Many governments throughout the world subsidize oil for their citizens, which means that gasoline sales in these countries aren't slowing down because of rising prices of crude. Increased demand = increased price.

Also, most of the world's oil reserves are within the territories of states which have oil monopolies, which have proven to be very inefficient at extracting proven oil reserves. Restricted supply = increased price.

Further, OPEC even restricts supply when it has the capacity to produce more. Further restricted supply = further increased price.

[dead0man]

$137 a barrel oil is a symptom of peak oil. Too bad no one paid attention years ago when liberals were talking about peak oil.

Why didn't they pay attention to themselves and put a little money into the oil market?

[phk]

$137 a barrel oil is a symptom of peak oil. Too bad no one paid attention years ago when liberals were talking about peak oil.

Why didn't they pay attention to themselves and put a little money into the oil market?

Cuz they are dipsh**ts.