$200 Bbl Oil Soon - Forecast

[cells]

Because it takes some time to run down the nutrient content of soil.

Also expansion into virgin territory - Mid west, Australia, South American Pampas etc etc etc

However we were by then starting to use 'fossil' fertilisers - in the first instance imported guano from about 1840

How long does it take to run down these nutrients?

The same land was farmed to feed hundreds of million for centuries.

Back when jebus was a lad there were 200 million people on earth

1000 AD there was 310 million.

1750 AD there was 790 million.

What is this talk of 500 million max?

Back in 1750 we had 790 million people and that was when not much of the land was productive. Irrigation was poor, farming methods were poor, high yield crops of GM wasn’t invented etc. not to mention there was no need to feed more people so 790 million wasn’t the maximum sustainable back then.

You cannot argue for less than 2B being sustainable as 0.8B very active people with poor knowledge and techniques and little land was sustainable back in 1750.

[Kurt Barlow]

How long does it take to run down these nutrients?

The same land was farmed to feed hundreds of million for centuries.

Back when jebus was a lad there were 200 million people on earth

1000 AD there was 310 million.

1750 AD there was 790 million.

What is this talk of 500 million max?

Back in 1750 we had 790 million people and that was when not much of the land was productive. Irrigation was poor, farming methods were poor, high yield crops of GM wasn’t invented etc. not to mention there was no need to feed more people so 790 million wasn’t the maximum sustainable back then.

You cannot argue for less than 2B being sustainable as 0.8B very active people with poor knowledge and techniques and little land was sustainable back in 1750.

Simple - because the extraction rate did not exceed the replenishment rate. Natural replenishment comes from natural nitrates washed from the air, air borne salt particles picked up from the oceans surface, dust from deserts, outer space!

Furthermore people crapped and pissed where they grow crops - the nutrients were cycled back into the land.

What do we do now - flush it out to sea

[cells]

Simple - because the extraction rate did not exceed the replenishment rate. Natural replenishment comes from natural nitrates washed from the air, air borne salt particles picked up from the oceans surface, dust from deserts, outer space!

Furthermore people crapped and pissed where they grow crops - the nutrients were cycled back into the land.

What do we do now - flush it out to sea

So what do you think the maximum is?

[1929crash]

Having done the calculations I am inclined to disagree with you. The energy consumed by the world population in food equates to about 10 million barrels of oil a day. To suggest each food joule requires 10 fossil joules would mean 100 million barrels of oil a day going into food production - which clearly it is not.

I wonder if the 1/10 actually means leverage - and by that I mean we are able to produce 10x as much food by virtue of the availability of fossil fuels?

But if the 10:1 ratio only applies to advanced western societies, the calculations will be revised downwards globally.

If we assume 30% of the globe at 10:1 we get 30 million barrels per day.

And if 70% at 4:1 we get 28 mbd.

Total = 58 mbd, which is within the 86mbd for oil, but the total fossil fuel consumption includes natural gas and coal as well.

[Guest Steve Cook]

So what is the problem? It shows we have so much food we can divert 80% of our grain to feed animals and then humans instead of directly humans.

It shows we are awash in food.

It show you have selectively picked a sentence from the article completely out of the overall context of that article. This further shows you have either not fully read the article, you have read it but you are stupid or you have read it and wish to deliberately misrepresent it's content.

Read the article in full if you wish to have me take your comments on it seriously.

[Kurt Barlow]

So what do you think the maximum is?

No idea but I am certain about one thing. we have no chance of producing 10 mbpd energy equivalent of food without major inputs of fossil (or alternative energy).

[cells]

But if the 10:1 ratio only applies to advanced western societies, the calculations will be revised downwards globally.

If we assume 30% of the globe at 10:1 we get 30 million barrels per day.

And if 70% at 4:1 we get 28 mbd.

Total = 58 mbd, which is within the 86mbd for oil, but the total fossil fuel consumption includes natural gas and coal as well.

Still not possible. We know we use nearly all our coal for electricity, heating and the steel industry.

We know we use at least 70% of the oil for transportation and at least 80% of the gas for heating and power.

That leaves you an absolute maximum of 1500GW of oil and 800GW of gas for food production. However as stated there are lots of other things oil and gas are used for such as chemicals and plastics etc. at most a realistic amount is half of the 2300GW to food or some 1150GW out of 700GW food eaten. That gives you a ratio of about 1.7j fuel to 1j food.

Realistically that is a generous figure and I would put it at a third of that or about 0.5j fuel to 1j food. either way it shows you that less than 10% of oil and gas goes to make the food and likely less than 5%

[cells]

No idea but I am certain about one thing. we have no chance of producing 10 mbpd energy equivalent of food without major inputs of fossil (or alternative energy).

Do you see a day when fossil fuel production or alternative like nuclear etc is below 10mbpd which is roughly the energy we current use to produce the food this centaury?

BTW we produce >200mbpdoe at the moment just for comparision

[1929crash]

Still not possible. We know we use nearly all our coal for electricity, heating and the steel industry.

We know we use at least 70% of the oil for transportation and at least 80% of the gas for heating and power.

That leaves you an absolute maximum of 1500GW of oil and 800GW of gas for food production. However as stated there are lots of other things oil and gas are used for such as chemicals and plastics etc. at most a realistic amount is half of the 2300GW to food or some 1150GW out of 700GW food eaten. That gives you a ratio of about 1.7j fuel to 1j food.

Realistically that is a generous figure and I would put it at a third of that or about 0.5j fuel to 1j food. either way it shows you that less than 10% of oil and gas goes to make the food and likely less than 5%

More evidence for 10+:1, this time from those well known liars at the University of Michigan:

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf

[cells]

It show you have selectively picked a sentence from the article completely out of the overall context of that article. This further shows you have either not fully read the article, you have read it but you are stupid or you have read it and wish to deliberately misrepresent it's content.

Read the article in full if you wish to have me take your comments on it seriously.

TBH I read about half of it and backwards hahaaha, by backwards I don’t mean word by word but paragraph by paragraph until I got bored.

What bit in particular concerns you? Was it the shooting of the poor elk??

[cells]

More evidence for 10+:1, this time from those well known liars at the University of Michigan:

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf

FFS I don’t give a shit how many links you find, they are all lying and conning you.

Its simple math FFS, anyone saying >10 is saying we use nearly ALL OUR OIL ANG GAS IN THE FOOD INDUSTRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyy

That isn’t possible and I don’t care who or what you link

[1929crash]

I agree this one's a VI - the organic lot:

What they've discovered is astonishing. According to researchers at the

University of Michigan's Center for Sustainable Agriculture, an average of

over seven calories of fossil fuel is burned up for every calorie of energy

we get from our food. This means that in eating my 400 calorie breakfast, I

will, in effect, have "consumed" 2,800 calories of fossil-fuel energy. (Some

researchers claim the ratio to be as high as ten to one.)

But this is only an average. My cup of coffee gives me only a few calories

of energy, but to process just one pound of coffee requires over 8,000

calories of fossil-fuel energy -- the equivalent energy found in nearly a

quart of crude oil, 30 cubic feet of natural gas, or around two and a half

pounds of coal.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/fossilfuel060326.cfm

[cells]

I agree this one's a VI - the organic lot:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/fossilfuel060326.cfm

Keep linking all you like. The car in my garage and the boiler in my attic disprove any of those idiots that tell you 80% of oil and gas is used for food production.

VI or stupid the lot of them.

[1929crash]

FFS I don’t give a shit how many links you find, they are all lying and conning you.

Its simple math FFS, anyone saying >10 is saying we use nearly ALL OUR OIL ANG GAS IN THE FOOD INDUSTRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyy

That isn’t possible and I don’t care who or what you link

Don't forget that some fossil fuel use may be counted in other categories. You might count that airplane under transport when it it in fact carrying food for instance,

[1929crash]

Keep linking all you like. The car in my garage and the boiler in my attic disprove any of those idiots that tell you 80% of oil and gas is used for food production.

VI or stupid the lot of them.

you sound just like my grandson - he's four btw.

[cells]

No idea but I am certain about one thing. we have no chance of producing 10 mbpd energy equivalent of food without major inputs of fossil (or alternative energy).

Make an estimate

[cells]

Don't forget that some fossil fuel use may be counted in other categories. You might count that airplane under transport when it it in fact carrying food for instance,

Trust me when I say I am the most unbiased source you will find on these things and that 99% of websites either have a VI or are just plain wrong.

This 10j fuel to 1j food is definitely wrong.

1j fuel to 1j food is probably the upper limit of what we use and likely about 0.5j fuel to 1j food.

BTW just because we ship goods on planes don't mean we have to. Whatever the fuel to food ratio is I'm sure a lot of it is because fuel is so cheap. We may decide to eat less lettuce flow in from 3000 miles at a ratio of 1000 fuel to food and more grain at 0.1 fuel to food.

Anyway I don't care anymore, I know for a fact the 10 ratio is wrong. You can believe who you want but I have shown you ten times they are wrong/lying about this fuel to food ratio.

Edited September 7, 2009 by cells

[1929crash]

Trust me when I say I am the most unbiased source you will find on these things and that 99% of websites either have a VI or are just plain wrong.

This 10j fuel to 1j food is definitely wrong.

1j fuel to 1j food is probably the upper limit of what we use and likely about 0.5j fuel to 1j food.

BTW just because we ship goods on planes don't mean we have to. Whatever the fuel to food ratio is I'm sure a lot of it is because fuel is so cheap. We may decide to eat less lettuce flow in from 3000 miles at a ratio of 1000 fuel to food and more grain at 0.1 fuel to food.

Anyway I don't care anymore, I know for a fact the 10 ratio is wrong. You can believe who you want but I have shown you ten times they are wrong/lying about this fuel to food ratio.

I'm willing to discuss this but you are not.

[cells]

I'm willing to discuss this but you are not.

It isn’t a matter of debate. It is a matter of mathematics which I have repeated now at least 10 times.

If you disagree with the mathematics then tell me were I went wrong and I may well have gone wrong somewhere. But having done it 10x for you I doubt that.

[1929crash]

It isn’t a matter of debate. It is a matter of mathematics which I have repeated now at least 10 times.

If you disagree with the mathematics then tell me were I went wrong and I may well have gone wrong somewhere. But having done it 10x for you I doubt that.

Oh, look! Cornell University are lying now.

FOSSIL FUEL TO FOOD FUEL. On average, animal protein production in the U.S. requires 28 kilocalories (kcal) for every kcal of protein produced for human consumption. Beef and lamb are the most costly, in terms of fossil fuel energy input to protein output at 54:1 and 50:1, respectively. Turkey and chicken meat production are the most efficient (13:1 and 4:1, respectively). Grain production, on average, requires 3.3 kcal of fossil fuel for every kcal of protein produced.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97...estock.hrs.html

[tomwatkins]

This planet can hold human populations of 5B plus and I would go as far as say 10B.

We can also cut down our fossil fuel consumption 90% if we wanted.

Peak oil isn’t going to be a big problem and as I keep saying it isn’t oil it is energy.

We will not see peak energy ever unless we get saturation and we are not too far off saturation.

More nuclear energy, better battery technology (already on the cards)-more use of organics in getting depleted soils back to increased yields and oil can kiss my ass. I work in the industry in the US (we are a British company BTW) so I know a LITTLE bit of what's going on. People like 1929 and the rest of the doomsayers miss the political point and it is this.

Why is oil still important? Answer-because the Jewish lobby in the US want it that way. Think about that and the rest makes sense. No oil-no Middle East importance. End of Israeli influence. Peak oil my Aunt Fanny.

[bearbullfence]

Prove me wrong if you can.

The worlds population eats 700 GW worth of food.

Oil production is about 5000 GW

Gas is about 4000 GW

So if you think the ratio is 10x then your saying out of the 9000 GW of gas and oil we use 7000 of it on food.

******** lies and you are falling for it!

If it is roughly what I say at about 1 then 700 of the 9000 of gas/oil is used for food which sounds a lot more reasonable.

I have already shown that about 3500 GW is used in transportation.

3000 GW of gas must be used for heating and electricity.

That gives you 2500 GW of gas/oil to allocate to chemicals, products, weapons, infrastructure, etc and then finally food. even if we say half of the 2500GW what remains goes to food that is 1250GW vs 700GW and you get a figure lower than 2j fuel for 1j food.

How much of that5 3500 GS is used for transporting food, driving people to and from food producing jobs, flying execs round the world on food supply deals?

Ditto electricity and heating. How much used in food business?

[cells]

Oh, look! Cornell University are lying now.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97...estock.hrs.html

Doesn’t you link prove me correct?

It says grain requires 3.3j fuel to produce 1j PROTEIN but grain isn’t protein intensive and contains a lot of carbs and some fat.

Grain is about 10% protein so overall that link is saying it takes 0.33j fuel to make 1j of grain energy.

I said 0.5x seems about correct; grains are 0.33x according to that link and make up a big portion of a humans diet.

It also says chicken protein is 4j fuel to 1j protein or a ratio of 4x. however again chicken isnt all protein and contains fat and carbohydrates. Say chicken is 66% protein it means that the fuel energy to chicken energy is 2.5x.

So how can chicken fed grain kept in a warm hutch, process, shipped, delivered be 2.5j fuel to 1j food and your assertion is that on average it is closer to 10x.

Surely it is lower on average than chicken?

[cells]

How much of that5 3500 GS is used for transporting food, driving people to and from food producing jobs, flying execs round the world on food supply deals?

Ditto electricity and heating. How much used in food business?

Very little energy is used to transport fuel as I have shown before.

A HGV can do 30 tonnes at 10mpg.

So to transport 250kg of grain (enough to feed an adult male) via road 500 miles uses less than 3 litres of fuel per year!

You use more than double that PER DAY heating your home and driving your car.

And that is transporting your food 500 miles and contrary to popular belief most of our food travels a lot less than that. 60-70% of the grains we eat are produced in the uk and probably travels less than 100 miles from field to process to tesco to your home. The UK is also a big producer of chicken which travils a lot less than 500 miles to your plate. Also eggs, milk, cheese, pork, beef all likely travel a lot less than 500 miles.

Then also take into account most grains and some other goods are transported via ship or train which are far more energy efficient.

Heating in farming is again probably negligible.

As for people driving to work to the farm. Again that is negligible as 2% of the workforce makes all the food and presumably farm workers live on the farm.

Edited September 7, 2009 by cells

[cells]

There is an error in my calculation of the fuel to transport 250kg 500miles.

It is actually 1.9 litres and not 3 litres of fuel to transport 500 miles 250kg of food, which is enough to feed a adult male for a year.

That equals 0.0076 litres of fuel to move 1kg of food 500 miles or 0.076 kWh of energy. That much energy in diesel/petrol costs about 0.3 pennies. So it costs 0.3 pennies in energy to transport 1kg of food 500 miles on a HGV (would be a lot less on train and boat)