So Yabby and Admiral,
peak oil isn't real? ;-)

It was mentioned repeatedly on last night's Lateline.

It will be on tonight's SBS documentary at 8:30.

The ABC is showing "Crude — the story of oil" in May.

Can I suggest that you both google "peak oil" and do a little reading before you say any more? Try answering these 3 questions before you continue with the egg-on-the-face routine. ;-)

Questions.
1. What do the official energy agencies actually count??
Do they count the oil that we KNOW is actually there, or do they count stuff they WISH was there but have absolutely no evidence for? Do they tell us what they are CERTAIN is there, or do they fudge the numbers with probability games because they don't want us to know the truth?

2. Peak discovery year?
With hundreds of billions to be made, in one of the most competitive markets in the world, with some of the most advanced technology in the world and fantastic developments in the last decade, which year was the "peak" year for DISCOVERY of oil? In which year did we find the most oil?

3. Are we ahead on discovery?
That is, have we found far more oil than we have yet developed, or are we eating into old discoveries? In other words, are we replacing the oil we are consuming each year? If so, at what rates are we replacing it with new discoveries? Are we discovering twice as much oil as we use? 3 times as much? Or is it running the other way? What has been the discovery trend for the last 40 years as oil companies drill the entire globe? Where has the most significant finds been... is there any "low hanging fruit" or "easy oil" left, or have recent finds all been expensive deep sea fields because all the easy land fields have all been drilled and developed decades ago?

If you could answer these 3 basic concepts before continuing to insult geologists and experts in the field that I know personally, that would be great.

Eclipse, now where did I say that fossil fuel supply would not be
a problem? I just don't have my knickers in a twist about it
as you seem to :)

I have been saying for yonks and yonks, that what we are doing
is unsustainable and that means that eventually the wheels
will fall off the old cart. I just don't name dates, as I've
seen things change so fast, it would be foolish to make
predictions.

Fact is the West is hooked on oil. You'd only need the
slightest disruption in the Straits of Hormuz and oil would
pass 100$ a barrel. But that is political, not supply based.

Yet I see that as part of the solution, not the problem.
Fact is nothing will happen until there is a major crisis,
be that political or supply. When oil goes to 200$ a
barrel, people will get serious about using it wisely.
As I said on another thread, I bet you could halve your
fuel consumption, if you really tried.

Personally I am not concerned. 20 acres of canola will be
enough to cover my needs. I could grow a bit extra and
sell some to you, for huge money of course :) My lambs
and yabbies will still grow, oil or not. So I could sell
you some expensive food too! But then I happen to live
fairly sustainably.

The point of this thread was to say that we should use
less oil to affect terrorism. Ha, you must be kidding!
Its simply not going to happen.

Meantime, if you are so concerned, in Aus you have
options. NW shelf gas reserves are enormous, you can
live in the country, etc. etc. The solution will be many
things, not one thing. Unlike in a big city in say Europe,
where you freeze without imported oil or gas

I think I got you all wrong Yabby.

However, if contributers here watched "Crude Impact" last night — and especially if you carefully watched the interviews in "2013: Oil no more" — they'd see the potential for oil depletion to cause real terrorism, real problems with our food supply, real disruptions to our economies, and a very real potential for total systemic breakdown.

As Christopher Flavin said, "Most people think they are going to be worried about filling up the car. Time for a reality check. The real question is going to be where do you get a loaf of bread?"

So we are GOING to face a situation of ever declining, ever more expensive oil. Yet this could be made worse by just a few acts of terrorism that could suddenly, unpredictably bring down the entire global economy in a catastrophic way. As James Howard Kunstler from "End of Suburbia" says, "All it takes is 5 pounds of plastic explosive and a camel to put down an oil refinery!"

So when the oil runs dry, and international tensions loom large, and the city dwellers are starting to get hungry — where do you think they are going to turn to get their food, Yabby? It would be wise to help promote awareness of these risks. Help mitigate the risks to us city dwellers to protect your own farm. Otherwise, I know roughly where my city-dwelling turned road-warrior "brethren" will be walking to get some food for the starving hoards.

If you want to turn your back on the world, make sure you store plenty of tinned food and ammo... and have a few mates to watch your back while you sleep. IF (and it doesn't HAVE TO if we wake up early enough) it gets that "funky", you've got some very long years of "night watch" to cover.

Eclipse, I watched that show. It was a bit of a yawn, as there was
nothing that we didn't already know. But I don't think you need
to panic just yet lol. The world is not about to end...

Lots of mistakes in there. Of course there will still be oil
after 2013. It might just be more expensive. I don't see that
as a problem, it just means people will be forced to use it
a bit wiser then now. In America for instance, people don't
even make their own coffee anymore, they drive to a Starbucks
drive through.

So my point remains. If we only half tried, we could reduce
our oil consumption by 50%, but that won't happen until its
really expensive. The most permanent thing in life is change.
Change is what you will get, but you should see that as an
opportunity, not as the end of the world.

That explosive camel could happen now, yup it would cause
problems. You are free to buy some energy stocks outside
of the Middle East. If oil costs more, they will go up,
like say Woodside.

Growing wheat for bread takes very little energy, in
conparative terms. Factory farming meat is what uses lots
of energy. So pork, chicken, might be limited, due to cost.
Thats ok. You'll just have to eat a bit more pasture raised
lamb :) I remind you that Aus is the largest range reared
meat exporter, so energy is not the issue for Aussie farmers.

I think that suburbia will not end, but be the future. Let
me explain. Your movie showed carrots and the energy in
producing them etc. So energy is used to grow, transport,
process, market those carrots to you, the consumer. Meantime
you city slicker go to the health club for your exercise.

Now in suburbia, on your quarter acre block, using say a bit
of permaculture, you could grow those carrots right there,
no energy wasted, use your grey water to do it, plus save
your health club fees! Not a single litre of oil used either.

Words, words, for against, against for? Be realistic and come into the real world. The only answer to poverty, global warming etc is birth control, instead of producing food, medical supplies, infrastructure etc and sending it to the third world countries so that they become healthier and produce more children to die of starvation, put birth control medication in their water supply and the problem will be solved.

Hi Lizzie...
while I completely agree that population growth is essential in dealing with poverty, isn't that a bit harsh?

Isn't that a bit like an act of terrorism in itself?

Maybe you were being provocative because population growth IS such a real issue that you wanted to get people thinking. Yet on the other hand, there are other humane ways of dealing with population growth.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/171745/455

PS: While I agree with some of his solutions, I don't agree with the flippancy of this author regarding ignoring discussing population growth. Governments should address it, instead of being bowled over by the big land developers that just want more and more immigration into Australia — both enabling population growth to continue back in the home countries AND creating more net Global Warming emissions. (Each person immigrating into a First World lifestyle is worth 20 or 50 or 100 times the amount of resource consumption and pollution of the friends they leave back home, depending on the country we are discussing).

There is a list of Proposals for the Australian Federal Government here regarding population.

http://population.org.au/solutions/index.html