On the Imminent Depletion of Cheap Fossil-fueled Energy

A Concise Investigation...

2000 May 11

Perry Arnett

[this exploration is a compilation of conjectures, assertions, and maybe even some 'facts' that I will work to verify, and then act upon as necessary; this exploration can be carried to all kinds of ends, but my purpose here has been only to attempt to clarify the issues for myself so that I can make some decisions based upon my findings]

(i.e. - what do I know and how well do I know it?)

corrections, clarifications and comments from others welcomed

[because of the complexity of the subjects involved and the interconnectedness of it all, I have chosen to attempt to break the problem down into its smallest understandable concepts (for me) and then to attempt to conceive correct premises prior to drawing any conclusions - ]

(sort of like using Reverse Polish Notation ...)

***

1) to support its own life, each living entity requires an "ecology store", from which it consumes inputs from various sources i.e. energy, air, water, food, other nutrients, etc.;

a) generally, the more drawn from the store by the entity, the higher its quality of life may be said to be

2) the ability of an ecosystem to sustain life for those living entities that are a part of that system can be loosely defined as its "carrying capacity"

3) when the number of living entities multiplied by the 'ecology store' required for each entity exceeds the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, trouble results;

a) however, that trouble can be resolved by either :

1) a reduction in the number of living entities, or

2) the living entities can reduce their living standards, or

3) the carrying capacity of the ecosystem must be increased

4) if the carrying capacity of the ecosystem cannot be increased, - i.e. if the quantity of inputs is finite, (as they surely are on this earth), then the living entities must either

a) reduce their living standards or

b) reduce their numbers - to continue to survive

5) by most measures of finite macro-inputs such as world-available top soil, potable water, energy, etc., the carrying capacity of this earth has already been exceeded - by a combination of the number of the living entities and their living standards

6) for humans living in an Industrial Civilization, energy is one component of an 'ecology store'

7) however, energy is not JUST a component of Industrial Civilizations ecology store, but is the 'prime-mover' of Industrial Civilization - i.e. it is low cost, readily available, highly efficient non-human-labor-energy (fossil-fuel-energy) that allows humankind to have the things we do, to live like we do, etc.;

a) therefore, the less costly the energy, generally, the more things humans can have, and the higher the resultant standard of living

8) since about 1895, fossil-fuel (petroleum) energy has been the most readily available, cheapest, and most efficient source of energy available to do the work of humankind; prior to that time, it was with muscle power of men and animals and very small inputs from other energy sources that powered the civilization

a) thus, it has been largely fossil-fuels that have allowed the rise in standards of living experienced since about 1895

9) it is those unique qualities of fossil-fuels - their ready availability, their relative cheapness, and their high efficiency relative to other energy sources, that have allowed humankind to make and create and do what it has since about 1895

10) the cost of energy, its availability and efficiency impact all other human activities; i.e. whether a manufactured product, or a performed service, energy is an important part of the equation of the production of that product or service, and the cheaper the energy, the more of it that can be infused into the final product or service, and thus, the more impact energy has on this civilizations living standards

11) conversely, the less energy that is available, the higher the cost, or the less efficient it is, the probable lower standard of living of those using it (by Western definition...); which brings us to the present situation:

***

12) the amount of fossil-fuel on this earth is finite - what there is, is all there is!

13) the state of the art of fossil-fuel discovery is so advanced that all the fossil-fuel sources - oil fields - to be found, (of any value to humankind), have already been found

14) the peak of oil discovery occurred about 1976

15) the peak of oil production is projected to occur between 2001 and 2004

16) based on numerous historical models, after the peak in oil production (2001-2004) there will be a decline of world-wide oil production that will continue until all the oil left in the ground (that is economically feasible to be extracted) is gone

17) #16 is projected to occur between 2025 - 2100

17.1) the point at which the last 1/3 of the oil on earth remains, is projected to between 2010 - 2025

18) the decline of the availability of cheap oil, i.e. the decline of oil production - will occur far more rapidly than most realize because of the nature of the way most oil fields are formed (geologically), and the way they are tapped (physically), thus, the decline, when it starts, (2001-2004) will be more precipitous than might otherwise be expected by scientific analysis

19) because of the relative cheapness of oil in the past, and the dependance upon cheap energy sources to which most humans have become accustomed, all other energy sources are un-economical compared to oil, thus, there is no other known cheap energy source available to take up the shortfall once petroleum-energy is gone

19.1) there is no known hypothesized or conjectured energy source or imagined new technology on the horizon that can be implemented to take up the shortfall of cheap oil - at an affordable price or in any needed quantity

20) though all the numbers are not yet in (mostly because no one has taken the time to compile, analyze and generate them), as measured by barrels-of-oil-equivalent (BOOE), it appears that no other common or alternative energy source is, or will ever be as cheap as petroleum-energy has been; i.e. the numbers for the various other types of energy sources seem to indicate that it costs more in BOOE to develop/distribute energy from the other sources available, than is able to be generated from those other energy sources

20.1) therefore, #20 suggests that with regard to cost alone, rising oil prices imply diminished lifestyles

21) the world human population is rising

22) the rate at which the world human population is rising, is rising

23) the amount of energy being used by the human population world-wide is rising

23.1) the rate at which energy is being used per capita however, is decreasing - from a peak reached in about 1978

(thus confirming the crossing-point of the increase of cost and decrease of supply of petroleum as related to the amount consumed by humans; i.e. since there is less to be consumed and there are more consuming it, each can only consume less now than they might have previously...so the rate of use per capita has to go down)

23.2) thus the explanation for the decline in living standards for most in even the so-called "advanced" industrial nations since 1978...

24) the rate at which new oil is being discovered is decreasing

25) the cost to discover new oil is increasing

26) the cost to produce/refine/secure/deliver new oil is increasing

27) the rate at which new oil is being produced is decreasing

28) it takes +/-four barrels of oil to find one new barrel of oil

29) it takes +/-four barrels of oil to produce/refine/secure/deliver one barrel of oil

30) we are rapidly approaching a time when the increasing human population, creating an increasing demand for cheap oil-energy, in conjunction with the decreasing supply and increasing cost of oil, will create a circumstance where almost no one will be able to afford to buy petroleum-based-energy at any price

a) this time is projected to occur between 2004 and 2010

31) when #30 occurs the living standards of most will decline and social and economic turmoil will result

32) when #30 occurs, the relative value of human labor and cheap petroleum-energy in the West may reverse, thus restoring the former model in world labor economics

33) when #30 occurs, economic and other forms of 'globalization' will end and local and regionalisms of all types will re-emerge

34) world agriculture uses large amounts of fossil-fuels in cultivation, planting, fertilizer, processing, transportation, etc.; in fact, the primary reason as many humans are able to be fed today as are fed, is because of the infusion of fossil-fuel-energy into the macro-agricultural processes [someone has said that "farming is the process of using land to turn petroleum into food"]

35) thus, a precipitous decline in oil availability will cause a precipitous decline in world food availability

36) the combination of #30 and #35 will cause a precipitous decline in the world population - a "dieoff"

37) #30 and #36 will cause a reversion of human living standards to a former time - i.e. 1950? 1900? 1850? 1200?... in which life will be harder, tougher, more violent, more agrarian, less technical, etc.

38) #37 has been described as being a "descent into the Olduvai Valley"...

39) thus, we have within the life time of most of us, a probable change that will effect most humans in the way in which they provide for their basic necessities, their general welfare, their survival - and their hopes and dreams

***

Sources :

www.dieoff.com;

www.npg.org;

www.redrival.com;

www.runningonempty.org;

energyresources Forum

www.hubbertpeak.com

www.oiltheory.com

www.clubofrome.org

www.simmonsco-intl.com

The Next Economy; Paul Hawkin; Holt. Rhinehart...

The Prize; Daniel Yergin; Simon & Schuster;

Unibombers Manifesto; Theodore Kazcynski;

others...

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

Answers

DNS now: 63.15.218.185 maps to ... 1Cust185.tnt2.phoenix2.az.da.uu.net

Perry,

I must respectfully ask that you refrain from posting here. I don't know how to gently say this; but I'd prefer to attract a higher caliber person...if you know what I mean.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

The preceding post allegedly from Diane was sent by someone else with disruptive intent.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Correct it's our unfriendly troll Ladylogic posting from Phoenix.

This is actionable behavior Laura. You've been warned.

Diane

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Aside from the disruption,

Was thinking that whoever invents the successor to the internal combustion engine... one that runs on water or hydrogen... is going to be a very rich person.

Looks like we need alternatives "soon." Renewable is the only thing that makes sense.

Diane

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Also Perry,

This thread might be worth a read... VERY different take.

Scientist says Earth's Petroleum Supply is Replenishing Itself (Is petroleum a renewable resource? )

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 002jbX

Dont know what to think about it.

Diane

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

If this book has been brought up before on this forum, please excuse the duplication. In any case the author deals very directly with the problems our world will be facing in the near future, in particular the exhaustion of the oil reserves.

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: Waking Up to Personal and Global Transformation by Thom Hartmann, with a foreword by Joseph Chilton Pearce.

The reviews on Amazon.com, both editorial and by readers, are quite interesting.

I've been reading in this book, but find it difficult. Not that it's hard to understand -- it's just very hard to handle.

Radical changes in our dealings with the environment are needed. If these do not get under way very soon, my children (the oldest now 42) and grandchildren (the youngest now 2), and all their contemporaries in so-called developed countries, will be meeting very severe challenges.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Scientist says Earth's Petroleum Supply is Replenishing Itself (Is petroleum a renewable resource? )

And I can find reputable independent scientists that think HIV is not linked to AIDS, that there is no global warming and that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

That "replenishing" guy is not a petroleum geologist. And, although I hear he's quite brilliant, he's no Newton or Einstein or Hawking. Not likely he knows more about it than the rest of geological science.

Hallyx

"Facts: what the timid use to protect themselves from The Truth." ---Dr. William J. Shenker

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Correct, Halyx he ain't a petroleum geologist. HOWEVER he IS a scientific gadfly, who has a track record of being right a VERY large percentage/number of times as he skewers scientific establishment views.

Course, along those lines, if you don't like the weather (or scientific reality) hang around a while it's likely to change (witness any number of health related "facts").

C

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2000

Diane conjectured, "...whoever invents the successor to the internal combustion engine...one that runs on water or hydrogen... is going to be a very rich person."

Hydrogen reciprocating engines are a snap. Mercedes has a production prototype running. Hydrogen fuel cells are becoming remarkably eficient (see Ballard, et al). They don't get to make big bucks until one other billionaire (corporation most likely) figures out how to produce the hydrogen. The most efficient methods I know of electrolyze water at a ROEI Return On Energy Investment) of 7 to 1, ie. 7 watts of energy are needed to produce enough hydrogen to make one watt of power.

They've got a long way to go. And the Second Law says hydrogen will always be an energy sink; it takes less work to make water from H and O2 than it does to separate them. In other words, hydrogen is a carrier not a source.

Chuck, I'm not going to argue science philosphy with you. Although I think my scientific and engineering background at least equals yours, I have neither the language, patience nor interest in tangling with you. Take it up with the pros at [energyresourses] or [RunningOnEmpty] eGroups lists. Bring your own buttlube (unless you like it dry).

Hallyx

"For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill. " --unknown

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Sorry H, tweren't arguin', just pointed out that the guy 9i DID call him a gadflyu) had a track recoerd..... Every gadfly gets its day, kinda like the stopped clock that is right twice a day, and he seems to have had a few.

Personal position is that we are getting to the bottom of the piggy- bank in terms of CHEAP fossil fuels. Next tier cost is MUCH higher than what we have paid so far, and NONE (not a one) of the world's economies are prepared to handle this. Not even the countries who have HUGE taxes on energy, because if they lift the taxes on energy to try to maintain some soi dissant "sanity" in the energy market, they have to tax something else to take up the shortfall....

Chuck

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Oh darn. Rented fingers, no spellcheck, no time.

C

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Item #13 conflicts with items #24 and #25. It states all oil fields have been found...then states the cost of finding new oil fields and the decreasing discovery of new fields. ??

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

Sorry for my shortness and sarcasm there, Mr. Driver. I know you're one of the good guys. I'm just fed up with explaining the same thing over and over. I'm also tired of being pushed further to the left in an effort to maintain a defensible argument.

Check my posting record over two years at TB2K, the only opinion I ever expressed on Y2K is that, compared to other shit going down, it was a "cookie" (not exactly a piece of cake, but...).

If it was just one thing OR another, I could be more sanguine. But it's one thing AND another AND another AND...it seems to me it redounds to our Western/Christian worldview. Now, that's an oversimplification and an insult to "believers," but, in trying to deal with the scope and complexity of the problem, it seems the only handle I can get on the whole thing.

Energy is the crux of the problem. The way we're dealing with it leaves me little optimism that we'll make 2050 with a coherent society, one in which I'd want my grandkids to live. The way Y2K was dealt with does not further any waning optimism I may feel.

But even if (say) fusion were perfected tomorrow, I don't think we'd make 2100 because of our intransigent element abuse (Earth, Air, Water, Fire). The technocrats, in their hubris, seem to think that we can find the solution to our current imbalance by walking farther out on the limb of technology. Maybe they're right; I spent 35 years thinking they were. But now I'm not so sure.

Damn, I wish we could "talk" about this. Typing and written expression is such an odious exercise for me, hence my less than cordial tone at times. Lo siento.

Hallyx

"The world that we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems which cannot be solved by the same level of thinking in which they were created." --- Albert Einstein

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2000

De nada.

As I think it was Hardliner once said to me, "I think we are in violent agreement."

C

Ps If you drop me an E there IS a place we MIGHT be able to "chat" about it.

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2000