Most of the recent oil discoveries have been much smaller than those found in the 1950's and 1960's. North Sea oil has already peaked, and is in decline. Alaska is about a 2-year supply at the U.S.'s current import rates. The Caspian Basin isn't nearly as bountiful as some had hoped. (Now the Chinese want to purchase Unocal, which has large holdings in the Caspian. Do you think they'd rather ship their oil to China or the U.S.?)

Most of the oil (in the form of oil shale and tar sands) will never be recovered. It requires almost as much energy to release a barrel of oil from the shale or sand, as is contained in that barrel of oil.

It's not just about how much is left though. It's a matter of economic principles. As global world production peaks (in other words supply peaks) and demand continues to rise, the price of petroleum products will rise, potentially dramatically.

If you then begin to think about the impacts of this rise in cost on the global economy, the possibilities are startling.

For those of you who wish to read more about the Present (Permanent) Oil Crisis, I recommend the following websites:

http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/MatSim.html

http://www.dieoff.com/

http://www.drydipstick.com/

http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

http://inthewake.org/

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

http://www.odac-info.org/

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums

How's that for a wake-up call?

For now.

But technology will progress and improve. It always does. Extraction methods have been VASTLY improved in the past few years, and will continue to do so. Profit is quite an effective motivator for innovation. Millions of dollars are being spent on such research and development as we speak.

Of course I'm not against conservation, alternative fuels, and common-sense policies.... but all of this "the sky is falling" hysteria about our oil supply is unwarranted. Our "way of life" is not going to come crumbling down in 40 years.

Automotive technology will advance, and become more efficient, as it always has. Biodiesel IS a viable alternative, as is waste vegetable oil, diesel/electric hybrids (I don't understand why more hasn't been done to develop these, but some companies are now getting around to it)...... and possibly even hydrogen, if an efficient way of converting, containing, and storing it can be developed. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but someone may stumble upon an answer eventually.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

While I do not agree with you, don't you believe that conserving the limited resource is prudent?

Even if only to allow technology time to catch up?

Unfortunately, even the oil company executives agree that Peak Oil is here - NOW.
The use of Natural Gas has a problem. When the oil price rises, the NG prices will follow, as it is the most readily available fuel to compete with oil.
Western Australia's 100Year reserves of NG will only last 20 - 30 years if oil is depleted.

BTW, where do almost ALL fertilisers come from??














Oil & NG!

How will food production be affected?






Severely.

__________________
Tony from West Oz.
Fatmobile 3 84 300D 295kkm Silver grey/Blue int. 2 tank WVO - Recipient of TurboDesel engine.
Josephine '82 300D 390kkm White/Palamino int.
Elizabeth '81 280E, sporting a '79 300D engine.
Lucille '87 W124 300D non-turbo 6 cylinder OM603, Pearl Grey with light grey interior


Various parts cars including 280E, 230C & 300D in various states of disassembly.

I’d sure like to know where your information comes from - it’s a fantasy. The oil companies have always overstated their reserves to include heavy tars that are not economic to recover at even much higher prices, with known technologies. Mikemover is right (I hope) that new technologies will come along, but as far as petrochemical use and production is concerned we’ve really got to get real. This whole thing is just over a 100 years now - a very small dot on the timeline of existence.
We always seem to wait until it’s almost to late and then overreact. It’s time to take action, and on more than just energy - the story on good fresh water supplies in many parts of the world is killing people now. The nightmare of over population, and generally just using up everything is a reality. It’s not just oil - it’s a lifestyle thing. Check these little dull and boring water utilities - CWCO, WTR, CWT, WTS

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

Crash9 said:

"We always seem to wait until it’s almost [too] late and then overreact. It’s time to take action, and on more than just energy - the story on good fresh water supplies in many parts of the world is killing people now."

What exactly do you mean by "we always..."?

"the story on good fresh water supplies..." I ask you - Has there ever been a time in human history when so many people had good, fresh water?

I am particularly fascinated by the hyperbole. "it's time to take action..." and "killing people now".

I am no advocate of burying my head in the sand to avoid the news of the day, but let's bear in mind that progress requires hard work. Crying about it and holding rallies in the town square will not advance humanity one bit. If you want to make a difference, get your offspring into college and into the laboratory where they can figure out how to economically make automobiles that get 200 mpg.

I will stand by my earlier statements about the oil supply, while carefully noting that the conservation ethic is imperative. Why do you think I drive a diesel?

DS
87 300D
Northern Iowa

Thank goodness GM is doing their part by offering "employee discounts" on all their cars.

__________________
Jim

You've stumbled upon the root of MANY of our modern problems.... The biggest problem before us is not "lifestyle", it's not automtive technology, it's not oil extraction and refining techniques....it's OVERPOPULATION!

Gross, malignant, out-of-control, no-end-in-sight overpopulation is rampant in many parts of the world. People need to STOP breeding. Seriously.

The world needs improved BIRTH CONTROL technology and education FAR worse than it needs better automotive technology.

We are about to exceed the population capactiy of our planet, if we haven't already.....People are living longer, while birthrates are skyrocketing in many parts of the world. We need to either stop multiplying at these ever-increasing rates, or kick NASA's colonoziation plans for Mars and/or the moon into high gear QUICKLY!

All the conservation and cut-backs alternative fuels in the world are going to be for nothing if our numbersw keep increasing at the prestent rates.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

I agree. The sad thing is that many religious/conservative people and human right activists will look at you as a demon if you mention anything about birth or population control. Yet the truth is if the world population could be controlled and all families had no more than 2 kids the standard of living would go up for everybody, and we wouldn't have to worry as much about shortages of food, water, oil, etc. China literally saved itself from self-destruction with their strict 1-child policy. The US could greatly benefit from a similar policy, though a 2-child policy would be more reasonable.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Yep.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

thanks very much for the links in the previous posting.
i spent some time going through them, my awareness of the problem, the peakoil problem is drastically improved. i don't know what i can do with the information as an individual but i think it is useful to understand the thoughts about what may happen being so dependent on a non-renewable resource.

our very society (as we currently know it) may ultimately be as non-renewable and non-sustainable as the oil we use and benefit from.

it is concerning.

--CD

Sorry - I didn’t frame that in a good context. I’ve held forth on this kind of stuff so often that I pull from other comments. I’m a trader and what I was referring to is a typical trait of trending markets that spike at the top and then collapse. You see the same thing in day to day behavior though - overreaction in deregulation during the 80’s, the in way we finally integrated the public schools, the way we’re reacting to illegal immigration, and addressing terrorism to the current complacency about the mortgage bubble, that we’re still not focusing on smaller fuel efficient vehicles, and a water crisis, with the consequent food shortages that is almost unknown. Use Google - you can be reading forever.
From a Dick Cheney speech while at HAL - the bottom line goes something like this - in terms of BTU’s per capita. “Over the next 8 years if the developed word reduces consumption by 50% per capita and the developing world only comes up to that same level we will have to double current production.” None of the above is going to happen - price will go high in order to balance the impossible equation.

Of course - there's more of everything good and bad.Today, one person in five across the world has no access to safe drinking water, and one in two lacks safe sanitation.
Today, and every day, more than 30,000 children die before reaching their fifth birthdays, killed either by hunger or by easily-preventable diseases. Adequate safe water is key to good health and a proper diet. In China, for example, it takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce one tonne of wheat.
With Canada as a neighbor, we’re not facing critical mass on water, and we’ve got a tremendous potential for arable land. India and China on the other hand have a huge water crisis on the horizon, so I wouldn’t worry too much about them as long-term competition, but wars fought over water are as likely as the current wars over oil.

I just want to know where that came from? A lot of smart people are looking for $40 oil and I hope they're right at least for a few weeks, but I'll have both hands way up at $48.

__________________
89 300E
79 240D
72 Westy
63 Bug sunroof
85 Jeep CJ7
86 Chevy 6.2l diesel PU

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
Marcus Aurelius

EXCELLENT point Mike. From various sources I have read (you can too if you look into it), the biological carrying capacity of our dear little planet (meaning a sustainable, stable, relatively prosperous population) is between 2 and 2.5 billion. I believe this mark was passed sometime around the turn of the last century. The reason? O I L. Basically the same principles apply to a dish of bacteria, if you give them a vast influx of resources (food), their population grows dramatically. People were 'given' (by their own accord) a vast, extremely energy-dense resource (oil) that allowed them to prosper (grow huge amounts of food), and the means by which to use it (internal combustion engines) at about the turn of the last century. Clearly, with a population of about 6.5 billion, or whatever it is, we are not in a sustainable situation, but we are 'sustaining' ourselves artificially as a population with products and energies that stem from petroleum resources. Pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, production processes, you name it and its energy source/material base is probably linked to fossil fuels or the use thereof. Now here is some food for thought: when the bacteria in the dish run out of their massive influx of food, they experience a tremendous die-off, where the population dips well below even the "sustainable" mark. My point being, that the very animal survival of most people in the world is absolutely completely inextricably tied to oil and there is nothing they can do about it. period. Which poses a certain dilema as it seems we are running out of the stuff.

thats my 2AM rant for now... sorry about the length.

Crash9 said:

"In China, for example, it takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce one tonne of wheat.
With Canada as a neighbor, we’re not facing critical mass on water, and we’ve got a tremendous potential for arable land. India and China on the other hand have a huge water crisis on the horizon, so I wouldn’t worry too much about them as long-term competition, but wars fought over water are as likely as the current wars over oil."

You certainly make valid points, though I've no way to know if your statistics are correct. But, assuming they are; it seems to me that the way to efficiently feed and water large numbers of people comes with a diffusion of energy technology, which in the short term, must be petrol based. (or nuclear)

Your comment about wheat production in China brings about an interesting question: Why do we grow food on land which requires irrigation when there are millions of acres available, but unused, in the wet areas in the north and east of the US? You should see the statistics on fuel consumption for irrigation. It would fry your noggin. A lot of diesel fuel is used to pump water in this country. Additionally, air travel is an incredibly inefficient use of fuel (not as bad as auto travel), but fuel used per passenger mile is pretty high. Naturally, trains and buses are more efficient, but unglamorous. However, with gov't subsidies for airlines, they have been insulated somewhat from the cost of jetfuel. Though, if it goes high enough, even subsidies as they are now won't be enough.

DS
87 300D
Northern Iowa