The Forum > Article Comments > A revolutionary report on the future of oil > Comments
A revolutionary report on the future of oil : Comments
By Michael Lardelli, published 30/7/2007The International Energy Agency, in a recent report, has predicted much higher oil prices within five years at best.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 3 August 2007 9:35:19 AM
| |
Eclipse & others;
Then the export depletion rate (that is the rate at which exporting countries ship their product) is worse than the production depletion rate because they will keep their domestic market fully supplied. An additional depletion factor has been suggested that they might fully supply their friends and allies. Thats when we will find out who are our friends. Posted by Bazz, Friday, 3 August 2007 12:54:01 PM
| |
There's no reason why, in 2040, global demand for oil should be higher than it is now. Demand for the services provided by energy will certainly be higher, but those services can easily be provided using less energy, less oil and more of other energy sources.
Read the book, _Winning the Oil Endgame_! http://www.oilendgame.com/ Posted by xoddam, Friday, 3 August 2007 3:17:55 PM
| |
I partly agree and partly disagree Xoddam.
I know there are other things that can substitute for oil, like adopting TODS (Transit Orientated Developments) and New Urbanism, which will do away with our need for oil in the first place. However, as Matt Savinar says in "Crude Awakening", if we waved a magic wand and every truck and car became a hybrid, it would only delay the crisis by 5 to 7 years because of economic growth creating more demand. A serious crisis is coming soon. It will be here within a few years (or even months) and society has not even begun the discussion about what to do, let alone agreeing with everything in Oil Endgame. Just because something might be technically possible does not mean a smooth transition. Where is the political willpower on this? Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 3 August 2007 8:10:12 PM
| |
If suggestion “the revolutionary aspect of this report is that this is the first time one of the major international energy agencies has admitted that oil supply will become tight in the near future” was utterly right, this international organization deserves none credibility as it’d admitted a fact others knew ages and following this conclusion, this discassion was absurdity too.
Posted by MichaelK., Saturday, 4 August 2007 2:24:09 AM
| |
I'm not clear what you are saying Michael K. The fact that peak oil is GROWING in respect and reports around the world means that it is bunk? I don't follow.
1. The most oil we ever discovered was back in the mid 1960's. 2. The last time we discovered more oil than we burned was in 1983. 3. That's 25 years we have progressively been living off the older discoveries. Even Exxon Mobile admit this. 4. 54 out of 65 oil producing nations have already peaked. 5. Since I started following this story in 2004, peakniks have predicted concerns about the worlds top 4 super-giants, and 3 of them have peaked (Cantarelle in Mexic catastrophically, and Burgan in Kuwait leading to a Parliamentary inquiry into exactly why their oil reserves have been doubled on paper which does not seem reflected in reality). 6. Growing international recognition of the problem. Australia's "Dr Karl" thinks we are at peak oil. ABC's Catalyst interviewed Australian geolgists, and at a now famous convention a chief geologist asked the audience of geologists "Who thinks we are at peak oil?" and half the geologist put up their hands. HALF! Chevron state we are at peak oil, and a growing body of international geologists are moving from the skeptics camp to the early peak pessimist camp. 7. The USA's GAO has raised concerns. 8. Our Federal Senate sided with the early peakers. 9. And your reply to the IEA report is that because it's the first time an international body has raised this concern, it should not be taken seriously? That flag won't fly because:- a/ it's not true... there are stacks of government and organizational references to peak oil now, so it's just not true b/ the fact that the IEA — the hard corps skeptics — are now willing to discuss it means the debate is over. They STILL try to hide that it's below ground factors and insist its above ground investment problems, but time will show that you simply can't burnt oil if you can't find it in the first place! Posted by Eclipse Now, Saturday, 4 August 2007 10:21:37 AM
|
So think more like 30/13... down 30% in 13 years, by 2020. That's about somewhere around 50 mbd, which is more like 1970's levels by 2020. Just look at Cantarelle!