With Oil Prices Poised To Jump As Much As 70%

[Bardon]

Your missing some of the more nasty scenarios in your big picture view. Straight line interpolations is what frustrated me in my previous jobs. Extrapolations of credit bubble sales volumes into the future was insane. Same with population, we have too many people on this planet and it is not a given that we will keep growing at this rate. We may get an event that not only stops this growth but also reverses this trend.

However what you are predicting will ultimately lead to the correction if this is not it now. Agriculture is hugely dependant on oil and high oil prices mean high food prices and we got a taste of that is the last year where unfortunately the poor felt the brunt of it. The last oil spike was a taster, if we get the big one (which I am not saying we wont) then people will starve on a scale never seen before. If we get the deflationary spiral possible as a result of the World financial crisis then this will also have it impact on the poor in an unfair and negative way.

I am not saying that these population event are a given, but we face immense challenges ahead with the current population level let alone one that is increasing.

Yes it is a fairly generic simplistic view and I am sure there will be fluctuations but the overall trend line will be up.

With respect to human population I don’t subscribe to an arbitrary figure of maximum carrying capacity of earth. All previous predictions have been smashed.

The human race will continue to have breakthroughs as it has in the past mostly brought about by entrepreneurs, engineering and technological advancements.

We are as a species destined to become extinct at some point in time I wouldn’t worry to much about it though.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yes it is a fairly generic simplistic view and I am sure there will be fluctuations but the overall trend line will be up.

Only if we continue to have access to ever increasing amounts of crude oil (or its energy equivalent)

With respect to human population I don't subscribe to an arbitrary figure of maximum carrying capacity of earth. All previous predictions have been smashed.

because of access to oil based energy

The human race will continue to have breakthroughs as it has in the past mostly brought about by entrepreneurs, engineering and technological advancements.

because of access to oil based energy

Energy precedes technological advances and population increases. It's not the other way around. It only became a sensible activity to invest time and energy into inventing planes, trains and auto-mobiles when we had the surplus energy to make use of them. This rubric applies to most technology.

One would hope, of course, that some of the technologies that were invented on the back of our hydrocarbon consumption will still have an energetically viable future in a post-hydrocarbon world. However, I think we may all be surprised at how little this might amount to.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Bardon]

Only if we continue to have access to ever increasing amounts of crude oil (or its energy equivalent)

And I think we will and lets not forget energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If you look back in time we have had major breakthoughs that do require energy but its the human intellect that provides the means the energy will be found eg tools, weapons, wheels, books, medicine, horse and carriage, sewerage and there will be lots more to come.

[Methinkshe]

Only if we continue to have access to ever increasing amounts of crude oil (or its energy equivalent)

because of access to oil based energy

because of access to oil based energy

Energy precedes technological advances and population increases. It's not the other way around. It only became a sensible activity to invest time and energy into inventing planes, trains and auto-mobiles when we had the surplus energy to make use of them. This rubric applies to most technology.

Is that true?

Surely, the switch from coal/steam to oil/electricity was driven by technology and not surplus energy.

Edited to add: in a similar way, the switch from horse power to steam power was not driven by a surplus of horses but by new technology.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Methinkshe

[Guest Steve Cook]

Is that true?

Surely, the switch from coal/steam to oil/electricity was driven by technology and not surplus energy.

It's a house of cards

The surplus energy from coal allowed us the luxury of moving up the tree of technology onto an even higher perch. Each step up that tree we needed surplus energy to allow further progression.

We now need continued copious supplies of energy to maintain our position. The biggest danger is that once we are pushed off the industrial perch we are currently sat on, we will no longer have access to the necessary energy to climb back on

Edited May 22, 2009 by Steve Cook

[huw]

Yes but my point was on average we individually only live, well I don't know the average global lifespan, but say somewhere between 40-70 years perhaps. No point at all worrying what happens 100 years from now we'll all be dead. If industrialisation only lasts another 50 years then that's how it is. Who cares if it means that in a couple of generations there are only 500m people left? You ain't gonna change it.

The people who have to bury the other 5.5 billion

[Bardon]

Is that true?

Surely, the switch from coal/steam to oil/electricity was driven by technology and not surplus energy.

Edited to add: in a similar way, the switch from horse power to steam power was not driven by a surplus of horses but by new technology.

Not forgetting that coal/steam is still a viable energy conversion.

[Guest Steve Cook]

And I think we will and lets not forget energy cannot be created or destroyed.

If you look back in time we have had major breakthoughs that do require energy but its the human intellect that provides the means the energy will be found eg tools, weapons, wheels, books, medicine, horse and carriage, sewerage and there will be lots more to come.

Name me a major technological breakthrough in human history that radically transformed the lives of humans and (most importantly) heralded major population expansion that was not preceded by access to increased amounts of energy into the system

[huw]

What about the argument, that 6 billion+ humans can ONLY survive if we cut oil dependency?

We don't need to consume all this cr*p, we don't need to have just-in-time delivery from giant warehouses, of fruit and veg that has already sat around in refridgerators for months after being shipped from the southern hemisphere. Just eat whats in season, or perhaps potatoes and apples that your local farmer kept wrapped up in a barn for a few months.

People don't need a 15-hr flight to go on holiday, or to drive a 4x4. It doesn't even make them happier. A lot of it is keepig up with the Joneses.

It really bemuses me people talking about peak oil, when our consumption is dramatically more than it needs to be, is hugely wasteful, and most of us would just have to make adjustments rather than feel any hardship if we cut our use of oil.

People are talking about something running out, which they could easily stop using as much of.

Good points but we're going to need a different economic model -- our debt-based money requires economic growth to avoid widespread default on interest payments; economic growth relies on more people doing more things and using more energy.

[Methinkshe]

It's a house of cards

The surplus energy from coal allowed us the luxury of moving up the tree of technology onto an even higher perch. Each step up that tree we needed surplus energy to allow further progression.

Sorry, I'm just not getting that. For a start, who defined an energy surplus except by hindsight? The fact is, technolgy drove the switch from steam to electricity, from coal to oil. Remember the days when that "black stuff" which farmers occasionally drilled by mistake was considered a menace? Until it was recongnised, THROUGH TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS that oil was a valuable resource?

We now need continued copious supplies of energy to maintain our position. The biggest danger is that once we are pushed off the industrial perch we are currently sat on, we will no longer have access to the necessary energy to climb back on

I agree that we are overly dependent on energy, but for different reasons than yours. I am not concerned so much about the availability of energy which, I believe, will always be available one way or another, but by our dependence on energy just to live our daily lives. We are too far removed from the soil, from having the knowledge and ability to survive without the electricity that powers everything of which modern life consists. THAT, imho, is the great danger. Not that electricty or energy will run out, but that our dependence on those systems that require electricity make us very vulnerable to a cut-off, whether through terrorism, a breakdown of social order, or any other means.

Edited for typo.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Methinkshe

[symo]

Hard as it is for everyone right now in our office we are feeling plenty happy. I have my chartership interview coming up as well as my PMI exams. Lots of work worldwide now starting to show up and Russia is looking to realise its greatest weapon.

[Methinkshe]

Hard as it is for everyone right now in our office we are feeling plenty happy. I have my chartership interview coming up as well as my PMI exams. Lots of work worldwide now starting to show up and Russia is looking to realise its greatest weapon.

Pardon?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Sorry, I'm just not getting that. For a start, who defined an energy surplus except by hindsight? The fact is, technolgy drove the switch from steam to electricity, from coal to oil. Remember the days when that "black stuff" which farmers occasionally drilled by mistake was considered a menace? Until it was recongnised, THROUGH TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS that oil was a valuable resource?

I agree that we are overly dependent on energy, but for different reasons than yours. I am not concerned so much about the availability of energy which, I believe, will always be available one way or another, but by our dependence on energy just to live our daily lives. We are too far removed from the soil, from having the knowledge and ability to survive without the electricity that powers everything of which modern life consists. THAT, imho, is the great danger. Not that electricty or energy will run out, but that our dependence on those systems that require electricity make us very vulnerable to a cut-off, whether through terrorism, a breakdown of social order, or any other means.

Edited for typo.

We are removed from the soil now because we have no choice.

It takes two acres to feed a person without the use of industrial fertilizers that are, themselves, extracted from hydrocarbons.

There are roughly 7 billion people on the planet

There are roughly 15.75 million square kilometres of arable land on the Earth (however, an unknown proportion of this is only made viable via hydrocarbon-powered, technology driven irrigation methods). In acreage terms, this is 3,891,909,758 acres

This works out at 1/2 an acre per person. All of the above, excludes the land necessary to grow fuel and other consumable products.

The only reason that we can currently feed the world's human population is because of industrial (meaning hydrocarbon powered) farming methods.

There will be no gentle slide back to some rural idyll, circa 1750 in a post hydrocarbon world.

Or at least, not for 6.5 billion of us.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Bardon]

Name me a major technological breakthrough in human history that radically transformed the lives of humans and (most importantly) heralded major population expansion that was not preceded by access to increased amounts of energy into the system

I am not arguing that energy is not a part of it nor the correlation between increased energy use, with economic and poulation growth as it is. What I am saying though is that we will continue to grow and the energy required for the growth will be found.

I would also say that gravity fed sewers transformed human lives in large cities resulting in a dramtic improvement in living conditions and increased population without a major increase in energy input. Books also transformed our lives with minimal increased energy input. Mass transit also revolutionised modern life, yes it has increased energy demand but very efficient at that.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I am not arguing that energy is not a part of it nor the correlation between increased energy use, with economic and poulation growth as it is. What I am saying though is that we will continue to grow and the energy required for the growth will be found.

This is a statement of blind faith

I would also say that gravity fed sewers transformed human lives in large cities resulting in a dramtic improvement in living conditions and increased population without a major increase in energy input. Books also transformed our lives with minimal increased energy input. Mass transit also revolutionised modern life, yes it has increased energy demand but very efficient at that.

All of the above have occurred as a result of increased access to energy

[Methinkshe]

We are removed from the soil now because we have no choice.

It takes two acres to feed a person without the use of industrial fertilizers that are, themselves, extracted from hydrocarbons.

There are roughly 7 billion people on the planet

There are roughly 15.75 million square kilometres of arable land on the Earth (however, an unknown proportion of this is only made viable via hydrocarbon-powered, technology driven irrigation methods). In acreage terms, this is 3,891,909,758 acres

The only reason that we can currently feed the world's human population is because of industrial (meaning hydrocarbon powered) farming methods.

There will be no gentle slide back to some rural idyll, circa 1750 in a post hydrocarbon world.

Or at least, not for 6.5 billion of us.

There is plenty of land that could be brought into productive use through technology - and not necessarily the use of oil-based fertilisers. The Israelis did an amazing job and caused the desert to blossom through irrigation. The proper use of water and the potential for irrigation through the use of desalination would go a long way to helping the desert to bloom in many places. That requires technology, not birth control. And, counter-intuitively, the more people on the planet and the greater the challenges, the more likely it is that human ingenuity will solve any problem presented. It has always been the case that DE-population and not OVER-population has led to economic and national decline - just witness Ireland.

In short, I find your over-population argument linear and simplistic.

[Bardon]

This is a statement of blind faith

Yes I guess I have faith in us humans rightly or wrongly but I do.

All of the above have occurred as a result of increased access to energy

Yes as I said they both go hand in glove but they are good examples of how useful we can be. What if someone invents the modern day equivalent of something that has the transformational properties of sewer then we will be right again and so it goes on....

[Guest Steve Cook]

There is plenty of land that could be brought into productive use through technology - and not necessarily the use of oil-based fertilisers. The Israelis did an amazing job and caused the desert to blossom through irrigation. The proper use of water and the potential for irrigation through the use of desalination would go a long way to helping the desert to bloom in many places. That requires technology, not birth control. And, counter-intuitively, the more people on the planet and the greater the challenges, the more likely it is that human ingenuity will solve any problem presented. It has always been the case that DE-population and not OVER-population has led to economic and national decline - just witness Ireland.

In short, I find your over-population argument linear and simplistic.

How did the Israelis manage to irrigate the desert? Did they do it with fresh air, or did they employ massive resources and energy? If there was no oil tomorrow, do you believe the Israelis could maintain their current irrigation methods?

Energy precedes technology.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Steve Cook

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yes I guess I have faith in us humans rightly or wrongly but I do.

Yes as I said they both go hand in glove but they are good examples of how useful we can be. What if someone invents the modern day equivalent of something that has the transformational properties of sewer then we will be right again and so it goes on....

You are implying a largely correlational relationship between energy and technological advancement. Whilst, at the margins, this is demonstrably true, I am putting to you that the relationship is primarily a causal one

Edited May 22, 2009 by Steve Cook

[symo]

Pardon?

Russia will be using its fuel reserves as a weapon. They don't have to sell to the EU as China is also on their doorstep.

As for my qualificaitons, everyone I know in the energy sector is entering training, looking for more money and polishing their CV's. Looking forward to my IMechE interview for the lovely CEng status.

[CrashConnoisseur]

A bigger mortgage may be less financial risk than committing ourselves to pretty much requiring a car.

Something that those who advocate setting a fixed limit earnings multiple for mortgages need to realise. Often it may make economic sense for someone to take out a 4 or 5 times earnings mortgage for a house within easy walking or cycling distance of work, schools or childcare and thus avoid an expensive (and environmentally damaging) commute from a cheaper area.

[Methinkshe]

How did the Israelis manage to irrigate the desert? Did they do it with fresh air, or did they employ massive resources and energy?

Energy precedes technology.

Not so; technology UTILISES available energy. And the more technolgy the more available energy since we are actually speaking not of energy itself but the conversion of infinitely available energy into harnessable forms. Thus, it is not that energy itself that is in short supply, only the techonolgy that makes energy useful to human endeavour which is in short supply.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Not so; technology UTILISES available energy. And the more technolgy the more available energy since we are actually speaking not of energy itself but the conversion of infinitely available energy into harnessable forms. Thus, it is not that energy itself that is in short supply, only the techonolgy that makes energy useful to human endeavour which is in short supply.

Where is all this infinitely available and harnessable energy?

Believe me, you are onto a winner if you can say where it is. Not to mention, you will have several of the world's governments knocking on your door

[Methinkshe]

Where is all this infinitely available and harnessable energy?

Believe me, you are onto a winner if you can say where it is. Not to mention, you will have several of the world's governments knocking on your door

No, you didn't read properly my response.

I said that there is an infinite supply of energy and the challenge is to harness some of this infinite energy source. I did not say that energy is infinitely harnessable as you imply.

Edited for typo.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Methinkshe

[CrashConnoisseur]

Not so; technology UTILISES available energy. And the more technolgy the more available energy since we are actually speaking not of energy itself but the conversion of infinitely available energy into harnessable forms. Thus, it is not that energy itself that is in short supply, only the techonolgy that makes energy useful to human endeavour which is in short supply.

Good post. The technology isn't in short supply either; it just needs to be further developed to a level where it's economically viable and able to compete with (increasingly more expensive) fossil fuel.