http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

 

Appears to be quite true for peak world oil. But I believe that the US passed peak oil sometime back in the 70's.

You would think that we as intelligent consumers of a limited resource would have at least come up with many viable, widely usable, fuel alternatives given that the industrial age is well over 100 years old......... Or are the big oil co's holding back until the last drop of profit is squeezed out of the ground and our wallets??

 

While I don't think anyone knows for sure, how much oil is left, it would be wise to look at alternatives before our economy goes into shock from a sharp reduction.

 

some intersting stuff at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

I'd like to know more of the math behind the theory - and if it is common in oil peak research to make assumptions like uniform production over the course of a calendar year. That assumption is unstated in the originally linked article, but it is necessary for the straight line graph (note that it is only necessary if you want to pinpoint the exact DAY of the peak).

 

The easy oil has passed its peak.

But there are all sorts of other dirty fuels lying a little further underground and a little further out of reach.

After the easy stuff has gone, then they'll just start drilling in areas that weren't economically competitive before. Then they'll start going for the deeper oil in harder to reach deposits.

After all that is gone, there is a vast amount of carbon trapped in the oil-shales and tar-sands of Canada and the like. After that, there's a huge amount of coal that could be turned into oil and after that there are the methane hydrates etc.

Based on these different resources, Ford executives estimate that there is up to 400 years worth of other fossil derived fuels left for us to use!

I take some comfort from the fact that VEGETABLE OIL is soon to be cheaper, and in the longer future much cheaper, than crude oil.

 

I read an article in IndyNews Daily that put forth the idea that the oil peak *could* occur as early as 2008. That doesn't mean that the oil is just going to stop in 2008, but it could mean that oil production could gradually ramp *downward* over the next few decades until it is nothing but a trickle.

That's not necessarily a *bad* thing as long as oil demand somehow ramps down along with the supply. It could be done by gradually intoducing ethanol into the fuel supply (E10 one year, E15 the following year, etc), or by gradually increasing the efficiency of motor vehicles (via better engine technology, better hybrid technology, or better construction materials).

I guess the most important thing is for the world governments to *acknowledge* this idea and actually come up with a plan that systematicly decreases our oil demand over a 30-40 year period.

 

I've posted this elsewhere on Greenhybrid, but I like this site :-

http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

 

One reason that I have always been skeptical about those who say that Peak Oil will occur soon is this-- if that is true, surely the oil companies themselves would know about that, and if they know that the supply is so scarce, why hasn't the price already gone up? Oil is extremely cheap right now for a resource that's about to diminish in output dramatically in the near future. I just don't understand from an economic perspective why if the suppliers believe oil were so scarce that it would remain so cheap.

 

It doesn't matter whether the peak is in 2005, 2015, or 2115. This misses the point. The president himself said the country is addicted to oil in his 2006 state of the union address. In my view there are 2 kinds of addicts, those who want to be unaddicted and will try something different to be free of the addiction (halting maybe but never stopping trying) and those who give in to the addiction and barrel ahead (no pun intended), denying all for the addiction. Can anyone tell me about one addict or group of addicts who became unaddicted using all of their resources to insure supply of the addictive substance without making any other MAJOR efforts to not use the addicitive substance? How about any addict who didn't have to make LIFESTYLE changes to break and stay free of the addiction?

I wish I could say I am surprised for new calls to drill our way out of this problem without any sacrifice on anyone's part AT ALL, but I am not. Past administrations and congresses of both parties are not faultless, but they have not been in power for a full 5 years now. Drilling is not THE answer today and won't be any time soon. I will vote for any candidate of any party in the future who puts conservation measures as the top tier of their energy program and relegates this supply malarky to the last on the list where it belongs. Drilling should be an integral and necessary, BUT NOT PRIMARY, part of a day-forward energy policy. The DOE budget for 2007 has increases in alternative fuels research that are better than cuts for sure. But this is too big of a problem to be left to the special interests of oil and venture capital and minimal increases in gov't funded research to take care of. The government must lead us into energy self sufficiency by showing the way and setting examples with conservation and much larger research budgets and joint ventures, not lead big oil into another round of royalty free oil.