Readers interested in this topic may find the following posts on The Oil Drum worthwhile:

• Potential Impact of Cantarell's Decline on Mexico's Oil Production (7/14/06)
• An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers (1/31/07)
• Flesh on the bones of Mexican oil production (2/7/07)

The other trend that is occurring is that remaining reserves and production capacity are increasingly concentrated in the Persian Gulf. Good thing everybody likes the U.S. there!

National security alone would suggest a very serious effort to reduce our use of oil.

Sharrup and drink the Kool-Aid

Thanks Super G - please keep posting. Didn't the same phenom occur in Yeman? Might someone comment on James Howard Kunsler's alarmist The Long Emergency?

American Hawk wrote: "As oil prices increase, the incentives for innovation and additional exploration will grow."

We don't need "additional exploration" -- even if that were likely to turn up any significant new oil reserves, which oil industry geologists will tell you it is not. We need to phase out the use of fossil fuels, because continuing to burn them will make the Earth uninhabitable.

If concerns about the peak and decline of oil supplies lead to innovations in efficiency and alternative energy sources that reduce our use of fossil fuels, that's a good thing.

American Hawk wrote: "The market will provide a new solution, as soon as it becomes economically viable. All we have to do is sit back and wait."

"Sitting back and waiting" is a stupid and lazy attitude -- unfortunately typical of stupid and lazy-minded right wingers like yourself. It takes a long time to develop "new solutions". You have to start doing that before they are "economically viable" if you want them to be there when they become economically necessary. You need to be proactive, not reactive. This is where "markets" fail, because they are inherently reactive.

The "market" is not going to provide solutions. People with the foresight and imagination and determination to get out in front of the challenges of global warming and peak oil are going to provide solutions. And these solutions are necessarily going to have as much, and most likely much more, to do with efficiency and conservation -- doing more with less energy -- than they will with new sources of energy.

By itself, this is nothing to get alarmed about (unless you're a Mexican politician or a Pemex executive).

Or, for instance, a citizen of a richer country sharing a long border and free trade area with Mexico, whose economy and, particularly, social support network is intensely dependent on oil revenue.

cmdicely: Or, for instance, a citizen of a richer country sharing a long border and free trade area with Mexico, whose economy and, particularly, social support network is intensely dependent on oil revenue.

What are you talking about? Guatemala is poorer than Mexico.

A more true statement for now-the end of "easy oil" is upon us. Faster extraction and bringing more new (but smaller) fields on line will prevent true peak oil for a while. The effect of the end of "easy oil" means that extraction costs will rise and prices will rise from the $60 range. Even not considering political factors, those who think oil will go below $50 are dreaming. We have a small but closing window to act in a serious manner. Who knows, maybe the solution to global warming lies in moving to a world less dependent on oil. This can be an opportunity or an insciption on the tombstone.

We need to start exporting our CO2 to Mexico, I guess!

SecularAnimist is right about markets being unable to help us through this situation on the production side. But I'd add this: in any oil field, you reach a point where it takes more energy to extract the oil than the energy value of the oil extracted. Believe it or not, it takes energy to repressurize an oil field. As oil prices rise, those energy costs rise as well, so there is never an incentive to pursue that last bit of oil. The market can never overcome a situation where the cost of the oil is greater than its value.

Clearly you're looking at this the wrong way: running out of oil will solve the global warming problem!

Couldn't we just make up the shortfall somewhere else? Iran or Venezuela for example? (It's clear that Iraq isn't doing their share of the pulling, right?)

American Hawk gives us twice the stupidity for one low, low price!

As oil prices increase, the incentives for innovation and additional exploration will grow. The market will provide a new solution, as soon as it becomes economically viable. All we have to do is sit back and wait.

Did it ever occur to you that the rate at which oil is depleted makes all the difference between a smooth transition to alternatives, and massive economic crisis? Probably not....

As to the economic viability of alternatives: Sentient people have long (30+ years and counting, now) advocated a petroleum tax devised to ensure a gradually rising price floor for oil. And who's been amongst the most strident opponents of this strategy? Right-wingers.

As soon as the oil runs out, the middle east becomes destitute and the terrorists lose their access to capital. The faster we use up middle eastern oil, the faster they become irrelevant.

Um, yeah, right. There's just that pesky little interval during which the rest of the world might be even more dependent on the region.

Anyway, following your "reasoning", I guess you'll be demanding that American military forces withdraw from the region pronto, right? I mean, if we can wait it out until the area's an unimportant backwater, why the hell should we have so many troops there?

Idiot.

Actually, fields in the US do not tend to decline like that. Why? Because unlike about any other place in the world, oil fields in the US are owned by private companies with capital to make long-term investments that are not subject to the vagaries of political opportunism and populism.

Translation: State owned oil companies like Pemex (whose assets, by the way, were stolen years ago from US owners) are run terribly, like every other state-owned company in the world. And, when politicians in Mexico are faced with a choice between making capital available for long-term investment in the fields or dropping it into yet another silly government program or transfer payment scheme, they do the latter. Just like every other politician in the world. US politicians are no different - the only difference is that we have been smart enough, Mr. Drum's heartfelt wishes notwithstanding, not to put politicians in charge of the oil fields.

Actually, fields in the US do not tend to decline like that.

As your entire rant rests on the truth of this assertion, I'm going to have to ask you to defend it.

Couldn't we just make up the shortfall somewhere else?

The US might get the oil it wants somewhere else, but its unlikely that the reduction in relatively cheap oil will be made up elsewhere. Where there is cheap oil to be extracted, it is being extracted.

Yes, peak oil and the resulting higher price of oil is exactly what is needed at this moment. It's possibly the only thing that will force human society to seek alternative energy solutions and possibly mitigate some of the long-term environmental catastrophes of global warming. I'm not overly optimistic though. Many of the tipping points have already been reached and peak oil means we've still got roughly half the oil we've used up until now to burn.

coyote wrote: "Actually, fields in the US do not tend to decline like that."

Actually, fields in the US peaked in the early 1970s and have been declining ever since.

Private ownership is irrelevant. Private owners of a depletable, non-renewable resource like an oil field may well decide to either (1) manage it carefully to stretch out oil production and the revenue therefrom over the longest possible period of time, or (2) pump the oil out (and deplete the field) as fast as possible to maximize the short term revenues.

nepeta wrote: "... peak oil means we've still got roughly half the oil we've used up until now to burn."

This may be what you meant to say, but as I understand peak oil theory (e.g. the Hubbert curve), "peak oil" occurs when approximately half of the recoverable oil has been extracted. So we don't have "roughly half the oil we've used up until now to burn", we have roughly as much oil as we've used up til now to burn.

We extracted and burned up the "first" half of that oil in about 100-150 years. Given that we are now burning oil at an accelerating rate, under a business-as-usual scenario we will probably extract and burn up the remaining half in much less time than that, perhaps 50 years.

And if we do that, the resulting GHG emissions will make the Earth uninhabitable.

Given that we are now burning oil at an accelerating rate, under a business-as-usual scenario we will probably extract and burn up the remaining half in much less time than that, perhaps 50 years.

Yes, and no. While we may burn oil at a higher rate than we did 50, 20 or even 10 years ago, the thing that Kevin is focusing on here is that in addition to using up half our recoverable oil, the first half is much more easily (i.e., cheaply) extracted than the second half. So as a field collapses, oil becomes exceedingly difficult to extract and much more energy intensive, lowering the EROI of the eventual product.

You're right. No wonder I'm not a mathematician. My statement implies that we only have 25% of all extractable oil remaining.
And, yes, we will use up that remaining 50% much more quickly than we did the first half with all sorts of dire consequences for global warming. Still, it's better than having an infinite supply.

Neal: maybe the solution to global warming lies in moving to a world less dependent on oil

nepeta: peak oil and the resulting higher price of oil is exactly what is needed at this moment. It's possibly the only thing that will force human society to seek alternative energy solutions and possibly mitigate some of the long-term environmental catastrophes of global warming.

Uh, don't forget about coal. The world get's almost as much energy from it as from oil. And there are CTL (coal-to-liquid) technologies that allows coal to be indirectly used for that.

Unfortunately, coal is even dirtier CO2 wise than oil (IIRC about 28% more CO2 per unit energy). Tis a shame, since the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

alex: Unfortunately, coal is even dirtier CO2 wise than oil (IIRC about 28% more CO2 per unit energy). Tis a shame, since the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Of course carbon sequestration may be a workaround for power plants.

Alex: "Uh, don't forget about coal."

Excellent point. Cancel my optimism. I had 'momentarily' forgotton about coal.

Of course carbon sequestration may be a workaround for power plants.

It might be, but in the economic dislocation surrounding a rapid drop in practically-extractable oil, I doubt that sequestration would get much attention. Peak oil might help spur the kind of changes needed to address global warming, but if the supply shock is too sharp, the reaction is likely to be too focussed on managing the short-term energy needs, and not much on longer-term environmental concerns.

forgotton....duh...I'm going back to bed...

The nice thing about coal is that I don't think you can build a very efficient coal engine that will fit in a car.

The bad thing is that we are all busy inventing ways to burn whatever (eg coal) to make hydrogen or electricity to run cars so people can continue pushing a ton or two of metal 43.5 miles each day (the us average US driver).

Running low on oil could do wonders for classical air pollution, but not necessarily much for co2.

Coal & oil need to be separated. Coal is the primary agent of global warming & the key to our electricity.

Oil is not too significant for electricity or global warming, but central to The American Way of Life - behind the wheel.

We won't starve as oil production starts to decline - just have a big ole economic collapse.

And, to the extent we try to substitue even more coal, just make global warming faster. There's a few years yet before a coal shortage hits.

As Super G points out The Oil Drum is the place to monitor to keep up with this topic and learn how all this "oil stuff" works in the real world (it does get "wonkish" but is very educational).

The perspective of Matthew Simmons is also very important to be aware of in this area.

It IS important to you & yours even if you find it boring etc. Only gonna become more & more central to our lives as time passes.

"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel." - Saudi saying

Re: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel." - Saudi saying

daCascadian, can you provide a source for that saying?

thanks

cmdicely: in the economic dislocation surrounding a rapid drop in practically-extractable oil, I doubt that sequestration would get much attention

Sequestration only works for fixed installations (eg power plants) anyway, and oil is only used for about 3% of electrical generation. Therefore substituting coal for all oil power electrical generation wouldn't have a big effect.

The nice thing about coal is that I don't think you can build a very efficient coal engine that will fit in a car.

Hey, never heard of a steam locomotive or a Stanley Steamer? Of course you may need a passenger as a fireman (fireperson?). I suggest putting the opening to the firebox where the glove compartment is now, and dumping a load of coal in the back seat. Kudos to any fireperson who can go 100 miles without hitting the driver in the head with the shovel.

The bad thing is that we are all busy inventing ways to burn whatever (eg coal) to make hydrogen or electricity

Suprisingly, running a battery powered car on electricity from a coal fired electric power plant produces a lot less CO2 than running the car on gasoline or even diesel. ICE's (internal combustion engines) are hideously inefficient.

Coal power plants also leave the possibility of sequestration.

Also, if practical fuel cells for cars are developed, then (at least according to Rocky Mountain Institute) even running them off of hydrogen produced from reforming natural gas also greatly reduces CO2. Fuel cell cars would also leave the possibility of producing hydrogen from renewable sources like wind and solar power. Since the biggest probelm with those sources is that they're intermittent, and hydrogen can be easily stored, it's a great fit.

Downpuppy: Coal is the primary agent of global warming & the key to our electricity. Oil is not too significant for electricity or global warming

The world gets more energy from oil than from coal, but coal emits more CO2 for a given amount of energy. They're both significant.

There's a few years yet before a coal shortage hits.

A few centuries.

"Suprisingly, running a battery powered car on electricity from a coal fired electric power plant produces a lot less CO2 than running the car on gasoline or even diesel. ICE's (internal combustion engines) are hideously inefficient."

I'd be interested to see a source on that.

The numbers I'm finding indicate total oil well-to-wheel energy efficiency of the Tesla Roadster, a 2 passenger prototype electric car, is a bit less than double that of a Honda Insight hybrid, a 4 passenger production car 100kg heavier. Coal produces not quite double the CO2/energy as gas in electric power generation and as it is a well-to-wheel estimation whatever energy losses the smaller engine has are already worked in.

Seems to me that, as of now, the overall co2 efficiencies of the two are very similar.

While I think oil production will peak at some point in the future, I seriously doubt we will see that peak for at least 30 years. One has to remember that oil exploration was severely stunted during most of the last 20 years due to the very low market prices of oil. That has changed in a dramatic way during the last 4 years. If oil stays between $50-100/bbl, or even goes higher than $100, then you are likely to see a more rapidly increasing production over the next 10-15 years as new fields are discovered and put into production. It is increasingly possible to drill in even deeper water, and one must never forget the vast tar sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the oil shale deposits of the United States- as peak oil takes hold, the market price of traditional oil will rise thus making these non-traditional sources even more economical.

To summarize, peak oil will occur over a very long period of time, with several secondary peaks and valleys.

Oil is as important as coal in CO2 right now; but over the long term, not really.

http://www.energybulletin.net/22996.html is a James Hansen interview on that.

alex wrote: "Of course carbon sequestration may be a workaround for power plants."

Al Gore on carbon sequestration, September 2006:

The most important set of problems by far that must be solved in charting solutions for the climate crisis have to do with coal, one of the dirtiest sources of energy that produces far more CO2 for each unit of energy output than oil or gas. Yet, coal is found in abundance in the United States, China, and many other places . Because the pollution from the burning of coal is currently excluded from the market calculations of what it costs, coal is presently the cheapest source of abundant energy. And its relative role is growing rapidly day by day.

Fortunately, there may be a way to capture the CO2 produced as coal as burned and sequester it safely to prevent it from adding to the climate crisis. It is not easy. This technique, known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is expensive and most users of coal have resisted the investments necessary to use it. However, when the cost of not using it is calculated, it becomes obvious that CCS will play a significant and growing role as one of the major building blocks of a solution to the climate crisis.

Interestingly, the most advanced and environmentally responsible project for capturing and sequestering CO2 is in one of the most forbidding locations for energy production anywhere in the world - in the Norwegian portions of the North Sea. Norway, as it turns out, has hefty CO2 taxes; and, even though there are many exceptions and exemptions, oil production is not one of them. As a result, the oil producers have found it quite economical and profitable to develop and use advanced CCS technologies in order to avoid the tax they would otherwise pay for the CO2 they would otherwise emit. The use of similar techniques could be required for coal-fired generating plants, and can be used in combination with advanced approaches like integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). Even with the most advanced techniques, however, the economics of carbon capture and sequestration will depend upon the availability of and proximity to safe deep storage reservoirs. Nevertheless, it is time to recognize that the phrase "clean coal technology" is devoid of meaning unless it means "zero carbon emissions" technology.

Downpuppy wrote: "There's a few years yet before a coal shortage hits."

Alex replied: "A few centuries."

If humanity begins using a lot more coal, e.g. liquified coal to replace liquid fuels from refined oil, then it won't last that long.

And if humanity burns coal until there is actually a "shortage" of it, the resulting GHG emissions and global warming will wipe out most life on Earth.

According to the American Solar Energy Society, implementation of efficiency technologies and clean renewables (wind, solar and biofuels) alone can reduce US carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2030, which is in line with what most scientists believe is needed to keep atmospheric CO2 levels below the levels that would lead to irreversible catastrophic warming.

"The 200-page report being released today -— Tackling Climate Change in the US -— is the culmination of this effort. The results show that we have a variety of promising means available to battle global warming. They indicate that energy efficiency measures can prevent our carbon emissions from growing over the next 23 years, even as our economy grows. The six renewable technologies have the potential to make the kind of deep cuts needed in our carbon emissions. Of the total carbon reductions possible, 57% are due to energy efficiency and 43% are from renewables."

-- Dr. Chuck Kutscher, US-DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 01/31/2007

However, if it turns out that the peak oil guys are broadly correct, and declining fields start turning into collapsing fields across the world, that would be something to get alarmed about.

Alarm?

Spare us the alarm. Prices will rise, petroleum consumption will decrease, other sources will come on line.

In some parts of the country, commuters can already recharge their plugin hybrids overnight using wind-generated electricity. Other consumers power their pick-up trucks with bio diesel. New synfuels plants are under construction.

By the time the last drops of oil are recovered from the Canadian tar sands and the Rocky Mountain shale, no one will even notice except a few experts. Everyone else will have made the transitions to the new technologies.

jefff: Coal produces not quite double the CO2/energy as gas in electric power generation

Does "gas" in that sentence mean natural gas? If so then you're right (natural gas produces about 56% as much CO2 as goal for a unit of energy). But what does that have to do with my claim?

The numbers I'm finding indicate total oil well-to-wheel energy efficiency of the Tesla Roadster, a 2 passenger prototype electric car, is a bit less than double that of a Honda Insight hybrid, a 4 passenger production car 100kg heavier.

So they're comparing oil fired electric power generation to directly gasoline powered cars. 2:1 sounds about right. Since coal produces 28% more CO2 than oil per unit energy, my claim still holds.

Obviously getting the juice from something other than coal is better, but even with coal you win.

MatthewRMarler: Spare us the alarm. Prices will rise, petroleum consumption will decrease, other sources will come on line.

In the long run, yes. The question is, how quickly will the prices rise and the supply drop? How much warning will their be?

Markets are a great way to find alternatives in the medium to long term, but they're not great at dealing with uncertainties. Otherwise, why would California building codes need eathquake provisions? Surely the market would supply earthquake proofing in the absence of a legal requirement.

Lastly, the USN in the Persian Gulf is not part of my idea of a free market.

Spare us the alarm. Prices will rise, petroleum consumption will decrease, other sources will come on line.

Really? Magically, just like that, a society that depends on the unique qualities of petroleum will produce other technologies ex nihilo to take its place without drastic hits to the economy or major adjustments in quality of life?

I recognize you: you were the guy telling the Mayans not to worry about their dwindling foodstocks and the Romans not to worry about the increasing attacks by barbarian hordes.

How'd all that turn out, by the way?

"Does "gas" in that sentence mean natural gas?"

Ahh good point, yea it probably did mean natural gas!

Given the 2 passenger/4 passenger thing and your 28% number the electric car does seem likely to come out ahead somewhere around 25% I suppose.

Of course that is strictly the co2 output from fueling the car. Constructing it and supporting infrastructure are a significant fraction of total auto-transport co2 emissions.

The only paper I can find with a prediction for Peak Coal says 2032 in the US-

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

(Coal is in decline already in some other countries. Not sure where it stands worldwide)

gs >"...can you provide a source for that saying?"

I captured it from The Oil Drum where in the upper right hand corner of the right hand column of the page they display quotes which change everytime the page is loaded. I had heard it previously but that is where I found this version which is, I suspect, from someone that has worked in/with Saudi Arabia on oil matters.

Your "mileage may vary" of course...

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it." — Upton Sinclair (also from The Oil Drum)

Calculating Input/Output Impedence
The decline rate of one large field substantially increases. Ex presto ab-factsical, Mr. Drum postulates that all large fields will experience unexpectedly large decline rates. A millidarcical cognitive inversion exists here, methinks.

alex: Lastly, the USN in the Persian Gulf is not part of my idea of a free market.

I agree and I have written as much. The transitions that I mentioned will all be public/private cooperative ventures.

trex: Really? Magically, just like that, a society that depends on the unique qualities of petroleum will produce other technologies ex nihilo to take its place without drastic hits to the economy or major adjustments in quality of life?

Really? Yes.

Magically? No.

Drastic hits? Depends on what you mean by drastic.

Major adjustments? Definitely, major adjustments, including increasing the rate of the ongoing developments, like those I mentioned above, and others I have mentioned in the past.

Mr. Johnson should do some research on other major oil fields that have in fact experienced rapid declines, such as those in the North Sea. The whole matter of decline rates has in fact been debated publicly by informed experts for some time at theoildrum.com and its archives are well indexed and easily read.

But we don't need all the world's major oilfields to collapse in order to bring on the supply crisis that many experts predict. Consider this: today oil use is about 84 million barrels per day. If we pick a rather conservative estimate for average decline rates worldwide for existing fields -- say 3% -- then each year we need to put into production 2.5 million barrels of daily production capacity -- the equivalent of total Kuwaiti output -- just to stay even. That's running rather hard just to stay in place.

I don't want to even think about a faster average rate of decline, do you?

Craig Johnson >"...Mr. Drum postulates that all large fields will experience unexpectedly large decline rates..."

He is only stating what the "oil bidness" professionals are saying. If ya gotta problem w/that perspective go talk to them.

Tool...

"...With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power..." - Henry Wallace

MatthewRMarler,

Your blind faith in the 'market' is touching in a way.

An increase in demand automatically creates an increase in a commodity's supply by raising the price, eh?

What if the demand is for an inexpensive item? What if there is no more supply and no cheap substitutes?

Definitely, major adjustments, including increasing the rate of the ongoing developments, like those I mentioned above, and others I have mentioned in the past.

Oh, that you're mentioned in the past? Like your predictions about Iraq's progress or the November elections?

That helps to determine what value to assign them.

Really? Yes. Magically? No.

In fact magical thinking is a hallmark of your comments here, including this one.

Rhetoric is not analysis and hope is not a plan.

Marler wrote: "In some parts of the country, commuters can already recharge their plugin hybrids overnight using wind-generated electricity."

I would like to know exactly what you are talking about.

Yes, in some parts of the country, consumers can purchase 100 percent wind-generated electricity. I know that is true, because I purchase 100 percent wind generated electricity in Maryland.

And yes, a very small number of people have plug-in hybrid cars -- which are typically Toyota Priuses that have been individually modified by university groups or other researchers or hobbyists to turn them into plug-in hybrids.

But as far as I know, there are no commercially available, factory-built plug-in hybrids being produced by any automobile company, yet. Both Honda and Toyota say that they have commercial plug-in hybrids under development, and there are activist groups who are pushing them to bring those cars to market ASAP.

So, if by "in some parts of the country" you mean "in the driveways of a handful of people who have individually-customized plug-in hybrid cars and live in areas where they can purchase wind power through their local utility" then what you say is true. But you make it sound like this solution is fairly widely available, which it is not -- not yet.

So, please clarify.

I would like to know exactly what you are talking about.

Typical hyperbole from Marler. I live in a major metropolitan area and I sometimes have trouble finding a diesel pump, much less windmill-generated electricity for my futuristic car.

And pay at the pump diesel? Forget it.

Pelosi on nuclear energy: The Speaker also answered an inquiry from Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) on nuclear energy by saying that while she was once opposed to nuclear energy, changing technology had made her "bring a more open mind" to the option.
&&
"It has to be on the table," she said.

Secular Animist: Yes, in some parts of the country, consumers can purchase 100 percent wind-generated electricity. I know that is true, because I purchase 100 percent wind generated electricity in Maryland.
&&
And yes, a very small number of people have plug-in hybrid cars -- which are typically Toyota Priuses that have been individually modified by university groups or other researchers or hobbyists to turn them into plug-in hybrids.

that's what I said. Mass production will come soon.

But you make it sound like this solution is fairly widely available, which it is not -- not yet.

that isn't what I said, is it?

trex: In fact magical thinking is a hallmark of your comments here, including this one.

All of my posts about energy and climate have been backed by citations from the journal Science, and good sources like Technology Review and American Scientist. There isn't anything magical about investment in research and technology development, and I referred to processes already underway.

National Geographic, which I cited yesterday for its story about mangrove forests, is a little less prestigious, but I posted the story about the mangrove forest in Eritrea a few years ago when Science reported on the award that Sato received for his work. The forest is named Manzanar, because Sato lived there in his teens. Two other recent articles in Science concerned yeast that make alcohol faster than current varieties and an optimal mix of plants for biofuels that grows on second-rate soil without need for fertilizer.

It isn't likely that the rate of new fuel development will exactly match the rate of petroleum depletion, and it is likely that prices will fluctuate uncomforatably, but there is no need for alarm. Read about the Democrats' Clean Edge initiative.

tripp: Your blind faith in the 'market' is touching in a way.

Every time that I write about energy, I write about the necessity for a public/private partnership.

I don't have a "blind faith" that the market will mass produce plug-in hybrids. According to Secular Animist Toyota and Honda have plans to do just that. Ford and General Motors have made noises in that theme.

I don't have a "blind faith" that the market will produce windmill generated electricity: Texas is doing that already, and their progress is only slowed right now by the limitations in the rate at which the manufacturers can make the generators.

If there is any "blind faith", it seems to be a "blind faith" that converting to new fuels, over the time span required for the oil to run out, is impossible.

MatthewRMarler: "that isn't what I said, is it?"

You said "In some parts of the country, commuters can already recharge their plugin hybrids overnight using wind-generated electricity."

I now understand that what you meant was "In some parts of the country, a tiny number of commuters who have advanced technical skills and have hand-modified commercially available hybrid cars by adding additional batteries, and charging equipment of their own design, can already recharge their custom-built one-of-a-kind plug-in hybrid cars that are not available commercially overnight using wind-generated electricity."

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that plug-in hybrid cars are an important solution, particularly if they are designed to use ethanol or biodiesel fuel for the combustion engine, and I hope that such cars will be widely available soon. The individual and small group experimenters who have built the prototypes have led the way, and have surely demonstrated to the leading hybrid manufacturers -- Toyota and Honda -- that this can be done.

Ex presto ab-factsical, Mr. Drum postulates that all large fields will experience unexpectedly large decline rates.

No, actually, he points that the Cantarell results are consistent with the models offered by peak oil theorists, which suggest that large oil fields will experience such declines, and therefore provides additional support to those theories.

All of my posts about energy and climate have been backed by citations from the journal Science, and good sources

It isn't that you lack cites for your assertions, it's that you consistently oversell the importance of your evidence, blowing it all out of proportion and providing an unbalanced picture of the issue at hand.

Which, by the way, is why your predictive ability is so poor.

In the early seventies I was in the fifth grade and did a report on orbiting habitats which would spin to create artificial gravity and have their own hydroponics for food and solar for power.

There were to be ubiquitous by around 2005, if I recall correctly.

As you can see, we are conspicuously lacking in said orbital habitats.

Now the information I cited came directly from a reputable journal at the time, Popular Mechanics. So why are there no spinning cities in the sky? Because the article was merely theoretical and lacked the proper context of the rate of progress in space industry.

In a word; it was wishful.

The same goes for mangrove forests in Eritrea. They're wonderful, no question, but they are neither a solution in toto nor are they part of a coherent approach to meeting Africa's food needs.

They are nothing more than a happy accident. You are content to believe that happy accidents will carry us through. In fact you've argued here against a comprehensive energy plan and instead just to trust that things will work out.

Well, that's just plumb crazy.

It may also interest you to know that the painting of Iraq's schools did nothing to quell the violence (nor improve school attendance, which is at its lower EVER.) Nor did Shi'ite pilgrimages or Sunni tribes grousing in Anbar. THESE ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF YOUR EVIDENCE LACKING PROPORTION AND PERSPECTIVE. Your problem is you want to believe something to be true so you simply adjust your arguments accordingly.

In other words, you "fix the intelligence around the policy." Does that sound familiar?

All of my posts about energy and climate have been backed by citations from the journal Science, and good sources like Technology Review and American Scientist.

No, they haven't all been backed by citations to those sources (they may, despite you not offering citations, be backed by information in those sources, which is harder to verify without you providing any citations.) Examples not backed by such citations include, inter alia, all of your posts in this thread on energy, none of which cite specifically to any of the sources you claim here that all of your posts on energy are supported by citations to.

But at least your falsehoods are bold.

With regard to "faith in the market", it is worth emphasizing this bit from the passage that Kevin quoted:

...."They are feeling pressure from the market to say that things are fine ... and that they are doing well in production," said Mexico City energy analyst David Shields, the author of two books on Pemex. "But oil engineers will tell you that when a major field is in decline, it doesn't come back up again unless you do something very radical to change the dynamics....I don't see that happening."

So, according to this knowledgeable energy analyst, "the market" is "pressuring" Pemex to misrepresent what its oil engineers know to be the true condition of a major oil field.

Now, why would anyone do such a thing?

Perhaps because there are people in the oil industry who are concerned that if it becomes widely understood that a relatively sudden and rapid decline in oil production lies in the near future, that society will move more quickly to reduce its consumption of oil, which would not be in the interest of the oil industry's short term, enormous profits?

Is it wise to have "faith" in "markets" that are distorted by deceit?

Kevin wrote:

... if it turns out that the peak oil guys are broadly correct, and declining fields start turning into collapsing fields across the world, that would be something to get alarmed about. We don't know yet if that will turn out to be the case, but it's very definitely worth keeping an eye on.

I think that the Dick Cheneys of the world -- who are after all advised by "peak oil guys" like Matthew Simmons -- are well informed about this, and are expecting that declining fields will soon start turning into collapsing fields across the world, and that this is a major reason that they are urgently launching wars of unprovoked aggression to seize control of the world's largest oil reserves -- particularly very large oil reserves that have barely begun to be exploited, for example in Iraq and the Caspian Basin.

cmdicely: Examples not backed by such citations include, inter alia, all of your posts in this thread on energy,

It is certainly true that I do not repeat my cites very much. For the "stabilization wedges" I only put them up three times; for the new biofuels I only put them up twice.

This isn't an argument primarily about sources, it is an argument primarily about "alarm".

as in this, from trex: It isn't that you lack cites for your assertions, it's that you consistently oversell the importance of your evidence, blowing it all out of proportion and providing an unbalanced picture of the issue at hand.
&&
Which, by the way, is why your predictive ability is so poor.
&&
In the early seventies I was in the fifth grade and did a report on orbiting habitats which would spin to create artificial gravity and have their own hydroponics for food and solar for power.
&&
There were to be ubiquitous by around 2005, if I recall correctly.
&&
As you can see, we are conspicuously lacking in said orbital habitats.
&&
Now the information I cited came directly from a reputable journal at the time, Popular Mechanics. So why are there no spinning cities in the sky? Because the article was merely theoretical and lacked the proper context of the rate of progress in space industry.
&&
In a word; it was wishful.
&&
The same goes for mangrove forests in Eritrea. They're wonderful, no question, but they are neither a solution in toto nor are they part of a coherent approach to meeting Africa's food needs.

First, thank you for acknowledging that I cite sources. I tend to oversell them because most of the news here is from the dismal side. Second, you need to make up your mind whether the Eritrean mangroves are wishful (like the orbiting hydroponics) or wonderful (because they are actually there.) Third, I have never claimed that any solution to anything was in toto, and I never claimed that the mangrove forests were a solution to feeding Africa. I have said that the mangrove forests are a part of a reforestation/afforestation plan for sequestering CO2, and (with other salt tolerant varieties) growing fuel.

Secular Animist: I now understand that what you meant was "In some parts of the country, a tiny number of commuters who have advanced technical skills and have hand-modified commercially available hybrid cars by adding additional batteries, and charging equipment of their own design, can already recharge their custom-built one-of-a-kind plug-in hybrid cars that are not available commercially overnight using wind-generated electricity."

Thanks for clarifying.

One further note: both the automotive industry and aircraft industry began with hand-built items by just a few hobbyists. Electric motors, generators, transistors, microprocessors, computers, PV cells, fiber optic communication, telegraphy, all began in small numbers with limited capacities.

To date, plug-in hybrids are the best solution to the problem of how to turn night-time wind into daytime transportation. With the grid, you don't have to see the windmill that you are drawing from.

Now for plug-in hybrids we have: not very many, very expensive limited capacity batteries. Nevertheless, many motorists can reduce the fuel consumed in commuting by 85% (sorry, I lost the source for that -- probably Popular Mechanics), and improvements in batteries will improve that considerably, should such improvements occur.

And you are correct: no one, not even Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, has ever recommended "blind faith" in markets. Adam Smith wrote, approximately, "Men of business almost never meet together except to cheat the public of its money."

Is Mexico running out of oil?

Somehow I bet not.

That country hasn't been drilling as long as we here in the US have been with our need for C02 to get the oil motivatad. Kevin is always wrong about everything.

I bet its more of a money issue, whereby off-shore dilling just isn't within the pocket book ability of Mexico. NOT to worry, there has got to be a Western oil contractor waiting in the wings, but wait, isn't Mexico not exactly warm to outside oil contracting? It's like Russia in that aspect. I'm sure they don't want to end up like South America or the Mideast.

Better to call France, Russia, China, Germany or hey even Cananda won't, in the end, declare a pre-emptive war if they don't get their way with ya.

Potential Impact of Cantarell's Decline on Mexico's Oil Production (7/14/06)
An Update on Mexico's Oil Production--The Rapid Collapse of Cantarell by the Numbers (1/31/07)
Flesh on the bones of Mexican oil production (2/7/07)
Posted by: Super G

I'm telling you, its a money issue, oil production is a fine science that requires expensive equipment and chemicals to mine.

With Mexico it's a money issue. I'd call China, and screw Western oil companies - those guys want too much return, they want to own Mexico's fields. No more of that shit.

Mr. Marler you are so full of it that we should probably throw you out into the corn fields of Iowa so as to fertilize this season`s corn crop.

Have you no shame ?

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei

Have you no shame ?

What, you mean because I support the Democrats' Clean Edge Act and am not alarmed that the world will run out of oil in the upcoming century?

The world will run out of oil. This will take decades. Oil prices and supplies will fluctuate. Replacements for the oil are being developed. There is no certainty that the pace of replacement will evenly match the pace of depletion. There is cause for effort and adjustment, but no cause for alarm.

My anal sphincter knows more about this issue than Mr. Marler, known here as a serial liar.

How much are the TrollMasters paying you ?

“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.� - John Kenneth Galbraith

Private ownership is irrelevant. Private owners of a depletable, non-renewable resource like an oil field may well decide to either (1) manage it carefully to stretch out oil production and the revenue therefrom over the longest possible period of time, or (2) pump the oil out (and deplete the field) as fast as possible to maximize the short term revenues.
Posted by: SecularAnimist

And suppose as a condition of #2 that the US government were insane enough to institute a policy which made 25% of the profits from oil extraction completely tax free?

That's the 'oil depletion allowance'. Can there have been a better incentive to consume our domestice resources with devil-take-the-hindmost profligacy?

'We now import about a million barrels of oil a day in the form of goods from China. That is, China imports the oil, uses it to make products, and we depend upon those products.' - Lisa Margonelli
http://pipeline.blog.nytimes.com/

Bob Chapman of The International Forecaster: “US debt was up 10.1% to $4.085 trillion and accounts for 58.8% OF ALL THE CREDIT ISSUED GLOBALLY LAST YEAR. The US is producing more debt than the rest of the world combined."

Not to worry? The U.S. imports roughly 13.5% of its oil requirements from Mexico. I'd worry.

If anyone is still reading this thread, I recommend this article:

Hybrids Could Turn Big US Truck Fleets Green
by Frank Greve
February 9, 2007
McClatchy Newspapers

It discusses the technology used in hybrid diesel-electric trucks (e.g. garbage trucks and delivery trucks) which is somewhat different from that used in hybrid passenger cars (e.g. hydraulic storage instead of battery storage of energy from regenerative braking); the very significant improvements in fuel economy and reduction of pollution that these trucks achieve; the fact that everyone from the manufacturers to the purchasers to the EPA is eager to see these trucks become widely used; and the obstacles that nonetheless are slowing down the deployment of these vehicles.

MRM: The world will run out of oil.

da Cascadian: My anal sphincter knows more about this issue than Mr. Marler, known here as a serial liar.

Surely there is no lie in asserting that the world will run out of oil. Perhaps da Cascadian merely prefers to be alarmed.

Is this a lie also? "Hybrids Could Turn Big US Truck Fleets Green." I agree with the statement, and support the recommendation by Secular Animist that everybody interested in this topic read it.

The U.S. imports roughly 13.5% of its oil requirements from Mexico. I'd worry.

Now that the Chinese have begun to develop Caribbean oil fields for Cuba, perhaps the US could buy that oil. It makes more sense for the Chinese to sell it to the US than for them to ship it all the way to China.

All -

You worry too much. Let the free market take care of it. The market will deal nicely with oil depletion. The market will also address global warming when it gets around to it. Iraq and Dharfur could also be solved quickly and efficiently by the free market. Have faith in the invisible hand.

Free Marketeer wrote: "The market will also address global warming when it gets around to it."

Here's how the "market" will address global warming:

The ultra-rich one percent of the world's population will have the resources to surivive it, in their nuclear-powered climate-controlled domes near the arctic circle, defended by their private mercenary armies.

And everyone else will die off.

"Couldn't we just make up the shortfall somewhere else?"

We are, It is called the War in Iraq. The War on Terror is over in Afganistan. The War of the Nukes is over in Iran.
And there is a cash incentive to anyone who can talk someone else into joining the Army. Hawk, Al, Egbert? Any takers? The ranks are getting thin, boys. This girl has been in.

Roger that SecAnimist. Looks like I need to get into the (floating) nuke powered clime control dome business, since I'd make a lousy mercenary and I'm not in the 1%.

WRT to oil from Canterell --- decline is not a bad thing. One more country into the decliners column in a big way will help to raise awareness of the peak. US will not really start doing anything substantial about oil depletion until we get shortages that force demand destruction (i.e. a hard spanking by the invisible hand). Many will suffer (at least many not in the 1%) but change will come. If it happens soon enough it may even help with GW.

You idiot -Of course its something to worry about. Now!