Peak Oil, What Happens When We Run Out Of Oil?

[mixed]

Excellent post, exactly what I'm concerned about.

Peak oil means increasingly sever supply constraints, not 'the end of oil'.

That's true, I should have been more clear in my topic heading. Although it may be considered the end of oil for most people over here as they can't afford it.

You seem to have good knowledge. How do you think Thailand will cope. Will warm weather and traditional practices help soften the blow or is it the country too poor to avoid huge problems?

[blizzard]

wots these traditional practices you speak of? walking?

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

The use of tides,solar and wind have really been neglected and can provide a huge amount of power. And it is all renewable.

[mixed]

wots these traditional practices you speak of? walking?

Sleeping is one, but I've not known Thais to be great walkers.

Seriuosly though, agricultural practices, housing material, exchanging food/vegetables etc. Combined with new enviro-freindly technologies maybe they wouldn't do too bad?

[blizzard]

when oil prices go too high other sources will becum economically feasible, then the world will adjust . the thais may want to start to think about growing dinosaurs instead of rice and rubber trees, the traditional things, i guess.

[mixed]

The use of tides,solar and wind have really been neglected and can provide a huge amount of power. And it is all renewable.

True, but even in the best case scenario it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to oil. Not trying to be negative, just honest. Although there is plenty of sun in Thailand and lost of companies making solar equipment.

[HS Mauberley]

^ Absolutely. If we had 50 years and leaders who admitted that this problem was coming at us, we might get there but I think we've left it just too late.

I just don’t know how it'll pan out. I’m English so I can only really compare with there. On the plus side, Thailand produces a significant agricultural surplus but how dependent is that on nitrogen fertilizer (produced from natural gas), mechanised farming, and irrigation (both oil dependent)? There’s undoubtedly a vastly better store of knowledge amongst the people of Thailand on how to get by than there is amongst westerners (just how many people in Britain or the US can look after themselves without the state/corporate structure?) and because ‘development’ (for want of a better word) has come much later to Thailand I think that most people in Thailand could cope psychologically with living in tough times; can you imagine a generation used to Big Brother, iPods, Facebook, and all the rest being told, “sorry guys but things are just going to get a lot, lot worse and there’s nothing we can do about it”? There’s a lot of land around in Thailand and most people have some kind of connection with the country.

Then again, Thailand is going to be priced out of world markets long before Europe and the US and there’s just not as much money around to mitigate the fallout from peak oil. Its economy is (as far as I know) fairly dependent on foreign currency earnings from tourism and that’s surely going to be one of the earliest casualties of peak.

I think in the long-term, Thailand, relative to England or the States, is going to do fairly well (but that’s a big relative – things are going to get much, much worse for everyone) but I’m not sure how well foreigners in Thailand are going to do. We’re going to head into – economically – choppy waters (think of the depression of the 1930s…only much worse) and foreigners are almost always the targets of resentment in times like that. If you’re not established in a community, I wouldn’t really fancy your chances.

But this is just speculation…I could be completely wrong.

Edited January 14, 2008 by HS Mauberley

[mixed]

when oil prices go too high other sources will becum economically feasible, then the world will adjust . the thais may want to start to think about growing dinosaurs instead of rice and rubber trees, the traditional things, i guess.

There would probably be a strong demand for rubber as oil prices rise. Rice is also fairly useful,

It's alright to say 'the world will adjust' any idea how?

[blizzard]

if cost to cool thai apt or house rises 1000%, thais may demand nuclear power plants.

Edited January 14, 2008 by blizzard

[Gary A]

Recently I read an article saying the hot nuclear waste is 300 degrees F and remains hot for 150 years. One of these days someone will figure out how to safely use it and cars will be running on steam generated by a brick size piece of hot waste. This waste is NOT suitable for weapons.

[britmaveric]

Find smth else as a fuel source... humans can be inventive when need be. I sort of believe we dont need oil now, but oil companies are denying the technology see the light of day because they know what that will mean.

[uptou]

What about palm oil gas stations? i'm sure tuk tuk's can run on any old oil.

On a serious note the idea of a passenger jet flying into a nuclear power station is....well...scary.

[canuckamuck]

Peak Oil - Ha ha so cute

So many Chicken Littles in the world. There are tens of thousands of capped wells in the world that are not in production. There is more oil in tar sands than there is in the whole Middle East. Even Alberta Canada is said to have a larger reserve than Saudi Arabia. And Naam is bang on about the rest. So no, we are not at peak production. We don't need to be.(We won't talk about the theories that oil is actually a product of subduction and not fossils at all, making the end of oil impossible.)

Added to this, enviro-friendly anything is the current Holy Grail of invention. Prepare to be amazed at the unending uses discovered for our planets stunning assortment of energy sources.

Whatever makes the most money will be the next big thing. There are rooms full of guys at the car company's engineering and fine tuning their hybrid and hydrogen creations. Anything that grows can be fuel. As well as nearly everything that moves, like water and air. The Earths core is quite full of energy on its own account. Not to mention the sun and our own nuclear potential. The waste can be sent to the sun in nuclear waste powered rockets. We'll figure it out eventually. One day we'll be releasing the hydrogen from seawater in some radical new process.

As far as being efficient producers of energy, man is still in the Bronze Age. Don't worry; you will always be able to have a night light on when you go to sleep.

[plachon]

The serfs and minions of the Empire of Oil seem to be coming out of the ether thick and furious on your thread M. Must be the Middle East - Thailand nexus and the US-Canada True Believers in Madame Liberty built on the Great American Dream that does it.

At least HSB and Guesthouse sees things as they are on t'other side of the fence.

The naysayers of oil finiteness clearly haven't read Jeremy Leggett's books "The Carbon War" and "Half Gone". If they had, I doubt their responses would be so dismissive about the possibility that Peak Oil production may already be upon us or just around the corner. And when it comes, as Leonard Cohen prophesied: "Things are going to slide, Slide in all directions; there won't be anything left you can measure anymore."

And Thailand will not be immune from this slide, especially when so many of its citizens are a/ employed overseas in Oil Empire related/dependent businesses; and b/ the population are rapidly getting hooked on a mass consumerist lifestyle that makes them as exposed to the Big Crash when fuel prices rocket and Empire's tumble as anyone in the West. The main thing protecting them are the a/ warm climate keeping energy bills relatively lower and b/ relatively high spread of land ownership. But the land is being lost out the hands of the poor at an ever-faster rate than when it all goes pear-shaped, those with land and food, may have to share it round a lot of hungry mouths, cos there won't be cheap trucks to transport it from farm to Bangkok then. The scenarios, on reflection, in Thailand don't look too rosy at all if one thought about say, for the sake of argument, a doubling in fuel prices over a few years accompanied by a major economic recession. The last

Don't forget "early toppers" predict an oil topping point between 2005-2010 i.e. just about now!

And what do you think will happen in the foreseeable future for Thailand, "Mixed", let's say ten years from now?

Edited January 14, 2008 by plachon

[Prakanong]

Exactly - the nostradamus type soothayers have been harpng on about the end of oil since the 70's.

And ppl in Texas never thought they would run out.

There is a very good podcast from the "National Economist Club" available by a oil analyst that I was listening too at lunchtime about oil demand and production.

An oil-analyst, is that someone in the oil industry telling us that oil won't run out (infinite supply?). If this is the case why has the oil industry been investing in alternatives for so long?

Where are the new oil fields? Oil exploration technolgies have improved greatly, but no huge reserves have been found.

Ppl can argue about global warming, but with oil it's not if but when.

Of course its not if but when - what an insight - you are a genius.

Of course the oil anaylyst is not from an oil company - you obviously do not get it do you?

He had some interesting snippets to say about Saudi in that they are managing production so their supply lasts 100 years so the next generations of the royal family have wealth.

He mentioned a figure of 40 Saudi Princes born each month but I do not know if he was being facetious at that point.

[PhilHarries]

The serfs and minions of the Empire of Oil seem to be coming out of the ether thick and furious on your thread M. Must be the Middle East - Thailand nexus and the US-Canada True Believers in Madame Liberty built on the Great American Dream that does it.

Huh! You been watching Al Jazeera again?

At least HSB and Guesthouse sees things as they are on t'other side of the fence.

The water problem is with us now but the biggest problem at present is not lack of water per se but lack of clean, drinkable water. There exists plenty of technology to clean that water up but, unfortunately for those affected, there's no money in it. That and a lot of the victims of this problem live in countries under vicious regimes that prefer to keep their subjects under the ironclad boot than allow them access to basic amenities.

The naysayers of oil finiteness clearly haven't read Jeremy Leggett's books "The Carbon War" and "Half Gone". If they had, I doubt their responses would be so dismissive about the possibility that Peak Oil production may already be upon us or just around the corner. And when it comes, as Leonard Cohen prophesied: "Things are going to slide, Slide in all directions; there won't be anything left you can measure anymore."

So what makes Jeremy Leggett correct more than anyone else? He's the same as all the other doomsayers, predict the worst case to sell books (when has good news ever sold any publication?) and reap the return safe in the knowledge that when all the predictions fail to materialise most likely nobody will remember your words.

And Thailand will not be immune from this slide, especially when so many of its citizens are a/ employed overseas in Oil Empire related/dependent businesses; and b/ the population are rapidly getting hooked on a mass consumerist lifestyle that makes them as exposed to the Big Crash when fuel prices rocket and Empire's tumble as anyone in the West. The main thing protecting them are the a/ warm climate keeping energy bills relatively lower and b/ relatively high spread of land ownership. But the land is being lost out the hands of the poor at an ever-faster rate than when it all goes pear-shaped, those with land and food, may have to share it round a lot of hungry mouths, cos there won't be cheap trucks to transport it from farm to Bangkok then. The scenarios, on reflection, in Thailand don't look too rosy at all if one thought about say, for the sake of argument, a doubling in fuel prices over a few years accompanied by a major economic recession. The last

I kind of agree with you here in that a period of rapidly increasing energy costs transport cost of basic foodstuff will start to impact on the commercial viability of cities and we may see a limited return to the land. I don't see why you introduced a major economic recession into the equation though. Fuel prices WILL increase at an increasing rate as we are seeing now, that is a fact, economic recessions occur due to more factors than just oil price.

Don't forget "early toppers" predict an oil topping point between 2005-2010 i.e. just about now!

Who the <deleted> are "early toppers"?

And what do you think will happen in the foreseeable future for Thailand, "Mixed", let's say ten years from now?

"Mixed" is as good a way as any of saying I don't have a clue.

[Gary A]

I predict that oil prices will drop drastically in the near future. The cost of extracting oil from sands or shale is about $45 a barrel. Ethanol and vegetable oil are now competitive. As soon as OPEC feels a pinch from the use of alternatives, they will lower the price of fossil oil to drive the alternatives out of business or at least make them noncompetitive. The cost to most OPEC members is still less than $2 a barrel to pump it out of the ground. Peak oil is a scam driven by profiteers.

[OlRedEyes]

Peak oil isn't really a problem IMHO. Alternative energy will be developed quite quickly if necessary. Major advances are already gaining momentum.

Climate change, world-wide recession/depression, religious fanaticism, mass migrations and the resultant strains as well as food/water will be the big issues of the 21st century.

Edited January 15, 2008 by OlRedEyes

[Prakanong]

Peak oil isn't really a problem IMHO. Alternative energy will be developed quite quickly if necessary. Major advances are already gaining momentum.

Global warming, world-wide recession/depression, religious fanaticism, mass migrations and the resultant strains as well as food/water will be the big issues of the 21st century.

Agree with a few things about what the problems will be but will there be a global recession depression - its not clear and many observers are saying the growth in the developing countries like India, China et all means things are different this time ie a USA recession will not have as much effect as it would have previously.

Mass migration will be an issue as those peoples who are missing out on the benefit of globalisation try to move to the regions that are doing very well ie the triad of N American, Europe and East Asia - it will certainly continue to be a highly contencious issue in Europe and America.

[mixed]

He had some interesting snippets to say about Saudi in that they are managing production so their supply lasts 100 years so the next generations of the royal family have wealth.

Considering that discoveries peaked 40 years ago, please provide the 'interesting snippets' about exactly how they plan to manage production for the next 100 years. World population and oil demand are ever increasing, what do you think the demand will be in 100 years?

[PeaceBlondie]

Peak oil isn't really a problem IMHO. Alternative energy will be developed quite quickly if necessary. Major advances are already gaining momentum.

Climate change, world-wide recession/depression, religious fanaticism, mass migrations and the resultant strains as well as food/water will be the big issues of the 21st century.

Those last mentioned challenges, plus oil, are enough 'challenges' added together! Makes me pessimistic about a century I won't see halfway through.

[mixed]

Those last mentioned challenges, plus oil, are enough 'challenges' added together! Makes me pessimistic about a century I won't see halfway through.

Exactly my sentiments. What's makes these challenges so scary is the amount of otherwise intelligent people who say there's nothing to worry about, it's all paranoia or conspiracy.

Ppl were predicting these problems in the 70's. Imagine if we had of listened to them and they were wrong, would there be disastorous results?

On the other hand, imagine we listen to those how say there's no problems, business as usual. What if they are wrong?

[Gary A]

My fondest wish is to live to see the day the world can tell the oil producers to eat their oil. That day WILL come. The higher the profiteers raise oil prices, the sooner that day will come. The main problem has always been that it is expensive to develop new sources and major companies are afraid to spend too much money because it is quite likely they will lose their huge investments. Those companies are at the mercy of OPEC and it has long been known that OPEC exists only for OPEC. How else can you explain why it costs $90 for a product that costs less than $2. There is a bright side to this. Without high oil prices alternatives will never be found and the oil would eventually run out.

[Prakanong]

He had some interesting snippets to say about Saudi in that they are managing production so their supply lasts 100 years so the next generations of the royal family have wealth.

Considering that discoveries peaked 40 years ago, please provide the 'interesting snippets' about exactly how they plan to manage production for the next 100 years. World population and oil demand are ever increasing, what do you think the demand will be in 100 years?

I gave you the reference in the first posting - are you too lazy or just too dumb to find the podcast on the web?

Just in case you are either here you go - I will spoon feed you.

http://www.national-economists.org/podcasts/index.html

These are his views not mine so if you do listen to it do not try to debate the issues with me as I am not interested in your dribble.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Prakanong

[Thaiboxer]

Nuclear energy can be produced with no more radioactive side effects than already exists in our environment ("background radiation"). This would require fusion, which is when atoms are forced together at high speeds/temps so they "fuse" or stick together which releases energy. The method in use today is fission, which is simply splitting atoms and this releases dangerous radiation. There is a nuclear power plant in France which is testing this fusion process. Unfortunately, this process produces A LOT of heat which must be dealt with by a good cooling system to avoid a meltdown. Our sun is a good example of a hot fusion reactor.

"Cold fusion"; producing nuclear energy at room temp, seems to be the best alternative. No dangerous waste and no risk of a meltdown. I've read recently that some scientists (not sure which country) have actually done this by passing electrical current through some type of conductor wire which was immersed in a solution. This produced energy. Some American scientists in Utah claimed to have discovered cold fusion in 1989, however their claims were disproved. Perhaps cold fusion is already here and just needs to be developed in such a way that the average consumer can make use of it.

[mixed]

http://www.national-economists.org/podcasts/index.html[/url]

These are his views not mine so if you do listen to it do not try to debate the issues with me as I am not interested in your dribble.

I'm listening to it now, very difficult to understand as the speaker is referring to graphs which can't be seen.

"Paul Sankey is a managing director on the highly regarded Deutsche Bank oil team on Wall Street. He covers 36 major (and minor) oil stocks and MLPs. He was previously an oil consultant with Edinburgh consultancy Wood Mackenzie....

Seems like someone with a interest in the oil industry

Also, I have a bit of trouble with accuracy considering it was "Recorded December 6, 2008."

It would be good to see the subject debated, rather than just people presenting their views.

Would be also interested to hear views without resorting to name calling.

[altman]

here's a picture worth a thousand words...

[Prakanong]

http://www.national-economists.org/podcasts/index.html[/url]

These are his views not mine so if you do listen to it do not try to debate the issues with me as I am not interested in your dribble.

I'm listening to it now, very difficult to understand as the speaker is referring to graphs which can't be seen.

"Paul Sankey is a managing director on the highly regarded Deutsche Bank oil team on Wall Street. He covers 36 major (and minor) oil stocks and MLPs. He was previously an oil consultant with Edinburgh consultancy Wood Mackenzie....

Seems like someone with a interest in the oil industry

Also, I have a bit of trouble with accuracy considering it was "Recorded December 6, 2008."

It would be good to see the subject debated, rather than just people presenting their views.

Would be also interested to hear views without resorting to name calling.

Anyone who is going to have a extensive knowledge of the oil industry is going to be involved in it in some way be it for or against - critical evaluation of their views is what is required with the knowledge of where the speaker is coming from.

This is a western tradition in higher education and not the force fed learning by rote rubbish they get in places like Thailand

I thought the same about the presentation but there should also be the handouts / graphs available on the same site.

On thse type of podcasts sometimes you get debate and sometimes not - there will be questions after the presentation i would have thought but maybe they do not publish those at the NEC.

They do at the Stanford Entreprenurial Thought Leaders discussions which I like also

Edited January 15, 2008 by Prakanong

[JimsKnight]

There are many ppl who believe we may have reached the peak of crude oil production. This combined with an ever increasing demand means a grim future awaits a world that is addicted to oil.

Alternative fuel options such as nuclear, solar, wind, bio-fuels etc. would only provide a tiny fraction of the of the energy supplied by oil.

What will be the impract on Thailand? Is the country better of because it's a warm climate with plenty of sun and a largely rural population that could revert back to traditional methods? Or is the country to poor to afford the expensive alternatives?

Crude oil will never 'run out' but it will become more scarce and more expensive, belts will probably get tighter and people will have to learn to spend less of their money on crap they don't need.

However, the higher the price of oil becomes, the more viable it is to exploit the harder-to-get oil and gas in places like Antarctica, the arctic circle and the deep-water fields. Right now in S. Korea they are building made-to-order, enclosed oil & gas platforms for the russians so there is a counter-balance to off-set.

In fact oil reservoirs that have 'run-dry' experience a degree of recovery (to a certain extent).

Finally the oil companies love it when the talk of peak-oil comes along and the price of oil goes up! A few years ago when I was waiting at the heliport for a taxi some top-brass oil execs were rambling away and one of them let slip that as long as oil was above $25-$30 per barrel they were in profit! So that tells a story.

They can ramp up production and roam about surveying the place for more oil and more oil they will find cause Hubbarts Peak Oil theory only covered KNOWN oil reserves, not the yet-to-be-discovered ones.

Nowadays whenever a big oil company leaves a 'mature field' (having become more expensive to run than the oil and gas it produces) a smaller, independent oil company often buys it up and makes a killing on the oil-recovery and cheaper overheads that smaller companies foster. Working offshore and having seen the barrels per day that are blasting out of the North Sea I can tell you that if we have hit peak oil then it's going to hang around at the peak level for some time before a very, very, gradual decline begins. The renewables will play their (small) part too as well as their big brother Nuclear power. Don't forget that uranium is in an abundant supply and it produces a helluva lot more than renewables do. Nuclear waste is a down-side but deep-core sites and glass encasement are a way around this.

As a final solution, the boffins are predicting that by 2025 fusion power will be replacing oil and gas as a major energy source (subject to helium 3 availability).

Taking all this into account I don't think we'll be going back-to-basics but will have to be more conservative in our lifestyles than before (but not by that much).

Edited January 15, 2008 by JimsKnight

[PeaceBlondie]

Then there's my theory, shannnadagga, spelled with tripled consonants and probably discovered several years ago by those teams of scientific geniuses that Bill Gates/Microsoft was hiring by the hundreds. Something totally different, maybe from sand (plenty of that in the world!) and seawater (ditto), that will cost two satang per megawatt of power.

Meanwhile, the world's non-OPEC countries have willingly transferred hundreds of trillions of dollars of their wealth to the owners of OPEC, including the Saudis and Sr. Chavez of Venezuela. No such transfer of wealth between nations has occurred before. It redefines that phrase coined by Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations."