We won't EVER run out of oil. literally.

Except that with today's mechanized agriculture we are basically eating oil. Of course, an individual doesn't need oil for existence, but the current world population of 7 billion is probably not sustainable without oil.

Back to the topic:

1) Yes, oil is not going to run out in the exact wording sense, because when energy return on energy invested (EROI) for oil production comes close to 1 (you need 1 gallon of oil input to produce a gallon of oil), it becomes not economical anymore to drill for it. Thus, drilling will stop. However, for all PRACTICAL purposes, oil has run out at this point, and we are getting closer to it every day we use 90,000 barrels of it.

2) Technically, oil is a renewable resource. However, the rate of regeneration is so low compared to the rate of consumption that for PRACTICAL purposes only very little, insignificant consumption can be sustained while having oil regenerated naturally.

3) The above discussion is splitting hair and is muddying the waters, lulling people in a false sense of security with respect to future oil consumption. The REALITY is that the low hanging fruit have been picked and future oil is getting increasingly expensive to get. Here is the chart that should be concerning to everyone:

 

So go get yourself a couple of dozen of them, then.

 

Yes, but timing matters. How long do you wait, and how many die in famines and other cause while you 're-align' your infrastructures and industries? The political instability will probably send a modern country back to the 14th century if the transition is managed by 'free markets n stuff', let alone neo-liberals and right wing cranks.

 

It is a law and economics is a science. You of course don't know that, because you don't know squat about economics. My point in this thread rests upon economics, so it's hardly suprising you don't understand it.

No, it has not. We're still using oil, and there are still plenty of oil reserves that we can tap into. As I've said, do not be confused about "current oil reserves". That is not the same thing as how much oil there actually is, physically, it just refers to the oil that is currently profitable to extract. But more oil becomes profitable to extract as the price rises and as technology marches forward. In other words, current oil reserves will increase. We won't run out of oil for quite a while.

 

You're talking about it as if oil is just going to sudden dissappear over night! That is NEVER going to happen, so stop with these ridiculous scenarios.

 

No, it isn't a 'law', and economics isn't a science; you probably think it is, cuz, like, it's under 'Social Sciences' in the college catalogs and stuff. It's an acamdemic fantasy construct that has little bearing on real life business and corporate activities. Both 'supply' and 'demand' are largely artificial abstractions. Like I said, try reading a real economist who studies real world actions, like Krugman, for a enlightening exercise in how academic nonsense bears little relation to actual human activity.

 

I wasn't even talking to you, I was answering somebody else's posts. Yours got boring from post one, and it's still a stupid proposition; nothing changed with your later posts.

 

but do earth quakes become more violent in a less oiled crust... ect... I do not know the answer to these questions, just asking them as food for thought

as the plates moves, the crust may take longer to snap, meaning a more violent snap.. for a non-technical description of the event

.

 

that I will agree with, as oil becomes more expensive then alternatives, the alternatives will take over....

3rd world countries will keep the price low as long as they can, because alternatives means the end for them.... the catch 22 for them wanting to raise prices


.

 

Since you revere Krugman so much, why don't you go ask him if economics is a science and if supply and demand is a law? Do you even know what science is anyway? I seriously doubt you do, so let me explain it to you in a simple way. "Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explainations and predictions about nature and the universe. This knowledge is determined through the scientific method by experiments and observations, and may take the form of scientific facts, scientific models, or scientific theories." Economics fall under social sciences and sociology, because economics basically study the behaviour of humans in large groups. Now stop being such a pretentious ignoramus.

So? Are we not allowed to quote posts unless they were specifically directed at us? If so, get out of the thread because the OP was not adressed to you.

 

Can't read Krugman for yourself, and what he says about 'supply and demand'? I'm not surprised. If you can't afford books, ask somebody where a library is.

Well, 'simple' is certainly your area of expertise ...

So, you know economics isn't a real science? You don't seem to, probably because you don't have a clue. Do you call Madam Cloe's Hotline a lot? Read your horoscope every day?

Stopped decades ago; it's your turn.

Of course it was directed at me. It was a desparate plea for help.

 

If you read my post again, I said that for practical purposes oil has run out when the EROI hits 1, I didn't say that we have already reached that point. However, we are getting closer to it every day, and it is a one-way road. More technology just lets us pick the higher hanging fruit, but once it costs the same energy to pick the highest-hanging apple than what the apple returns in energy gain, the picking will stop.

EROI consideration is actually what all animals have to do all the time to decide whether it is worthwhile going after a food source or not. If the potential return of calories after eating the food is less than calories expended to get the food, pursuit of that food source becomes a senseless endeavour.

Now, going back to the tar sands, the favorite energy source of the oil proponents, EROI is already in the range of 2-3, which is very poor. Estimates show that our high-tech, high-energy society may not be sustainable with energy sources with EROI less than 5. So, tar sand oil is not a good way to spend resources, as it has poor EROI. The reason why it is pursued is because it can make a few people very rich, while being an overall drain on the resources of the society.

PV solar, for example, has also a poor EROI of about 5-7, but is is better than tar sand oil. Why is it not pursued instead of tar sand oil? Because of the entrenched infrastructure of fossil fuels.

 

Your failure to consider the consequences of massice increases in the price of energy.

 

I did, and it was your OP statement "So people, stop panicking. We're never going to run out of oil ever, literally, and the economy is not going to crash because of oil. Learn economics so you can better sleep at night." that doesn't necessarily fit with economics.

You've admitted oil is a finite resource. Economics says that as supply decreases and demand increases, prices increase. Which they can do abruptly, as we have seen in the past.

So while it is true that technically there will always be some oil somewhere on Earth (because it will not be cost effective to retrieve it), it doesn't follow that we will never "run out" of enough oil to meet worldwide demand, and that we don't have to worry about it, or that continued foolish energy policies won't have a negative impact, and potentially a large one, on our economy.

In my opinion, a much smarter policy is one that encourages efficient use of oil, encourages the development of alternative energy sources, and protects our economy from the worst of the shocks of variable oil prices.

 

Absolutely!

Building up renewables is the equivalent to an insurance policy against shocks in the fossil fuel supply world. Does insurance come for free? No, it doesn't. IMO, it is well worth it, though, if it can protect the nation from economic catastrophe in case the oil price goes through the roof.

 

No. He was saying that as the oil supply gets smaller the price will get higher. For example the last million barrels of oil would cost something like $750,000. There would be a million intermediary price changes along the way but eventually the price would become so high that nobody would want to buy it. It would just sit in the ground for millennia. Nobody would have any incentive to extract it. Therefore it would last forever.

Besides it's really nothing to panic over. Over a hundred years ago we ran trains off of steam (water). If oil does run out then we can use water to operate our cars. 3/4ths of the earth is made of water. The day we run out of water is a day so far in the future that it isn't a concern to anybody living today.

The point of his post was: Relax. Don't hyperventilate every time you open a news paper or watch the news on TV. They create drama that isn't there. We'll never run out of oil but if we do then it isn't the worst thing to happen to mankind.

 

That is a really good post. I hope to read more post like that in the future.

 

It's sad that that even had to be spelled out for the economically illiterate on this forum.

There is also another reason we will never run out of oil completely, we can't get to all of it. Some of it is buried under miles of ice, there is oil in the deepest parts of the ocean as well. A very basic science fact that the vast majority of liberals are clueless on.

 

I love you, Mr. Swedish Guy!

Do you happen to be a fan of Red Ice Radio?

Sweden Rules, and its unfortunate how the Swedish Govt is shipping in boatloads of immigrants, only to throw them into pre-built ghettos, in their horrifying efforts to replace your country's white population.

Also, I've been to Sweden and its one of the most beautiful places on this planet.

 

This is dumb. So we're never going to run out of oil because people will stop using it when it becomes too scarce. Thank you for your insight. I guess we can stop worrying now.

 

Well technically everything is renewable due to the law of conservation of matter; nothing can be created or destroyed, only changed. The problem with oil is that it takes so long to actually make that it might as well be unrenewable. Something that grows faster on the other hand, such as plants, are considered renewable because you can grow the plants at such a fast rate that it wont matter how much plant you use, there will always be more.

 

Have you ever built a steam engine? Do you know how dangerous, inefficient, and just outright terrible steam power is. In my engineering course, we tried to power a tiny lawnmower with steam, and the amount of time it took to do this was about an hour and a half, and that was just to get the engine powerful enough to get the lawnmower working. Those trains only went say 25-35 miles an hour. On top of that, all of our electricity and such comes from coal. We dont use steam power now because it is extremely inefficient.

 

I am actually relaxed. But maybe I'll relax even more after you tell me where the energy will come from to create steam from water? Somehow, water doesn't have a tendency to become steam by itself, without work being done.

This is what irks me always when people start talking about the "hydrogen economy", implying that H2 is free because it is a part of water, of which we have plenty. Of course they forget that it takes work to reduce the H+ in water to H2, which is not "free".

 

Maybe we will use the same thing we used before we started drilling oil. A person needs oxygen, water and food in order to survive. Without energy I suppose we would live a lesser fulfilled life but we would still live a life.

Electricity, facebook, vehicles, internet, refrigeration, television, democracy and all of that was developed pretty recently. We have necessities now that won't be considered necessities 10 years from now. We had necessities 10 years ago that aren't considered necessities today. Humans adapt. That's just what we do. The only persons that should be panicking is the managers of oil companies. Even investors shouldn't panic at this point. They can always sell their stock when they get too nervous. You can worry about it if you want to worry about it but no species will become extinct when all of the oil reserves become depleted. There is no benefit in worrying about it unless you are an oil executive or have ambitions of being an oil executive. Then again when all of the oil reserves are depleted I guess they don't have to worry about it either.

 

If we want to speed up the process in order to satisfy our curiosities then we can do that by implementing a gasoline tax of $8 per gallon and leave it in place for 2 years.

We'd see our alternatives emerge pretty rapidly.