Down the list, there's a long thread about oil peaking soon. I have spent quite a bit of time looking into the question of oil, how long it will last, and the consequences of it peaking out.

I must say it's depressing, and I hadn't previously given it a thought, dismissing it like the phony "gas shortage" of the 1970's.

But the evidence is starting to come in. Consider this report about Chevron. Many countries are facing peaks in their production soon (like Norway), while the US has long past its prime and is going down the bell curve rapidly.

http://dailynews.netscape.com/news/Business/04_26_2000.robtz1359-story-bcbusinesschevronearns.html

the key point is down 8 paragraphs from the top, even with oil rising to US$30 a barrel, Chevron was able to make only a tiny increase in production. The main site I have been able to find so far is

http://www.dieoff.com

there's tons of links, some from top oil industry analysts.

IMHO, the most glaring flaw is that it's guided by those who have a definite "leftist-green" perspective. While I am convinced that the facts are accurate, and the projections are grim, I do not think that a thinly disguised socialism is the best approach.

This changes everything.

-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), April 27, 2000

Answers

Sure M,

Thanks for attempting to track this, and watching for the agenda potholes.

I thought there was a clarion call for debunking on the other thread. What gives?

-- flora (***@__._), April 27, 2000.

Hopeful, I too was put off by the politics of some of the people behind the "coming oil shortage" issue. I decided early on to ignore the polemics and concentrate on the facts. When I first found Jay Hanson and his dieoff site a few years ago, I dismissed it as another enviro alarmist site. King Hubbert's findings impressed me, but Hubbert is dead and I didn't know Campbell, Hanson, and the rest from shinola. The March 98 Scientific American, which featured Campbell et al and their findings, turned me around. Instant credibility.

I don't share Jay Hanson's pessimism -- he named the site dieoff for a reason. If y2k proved anything, it was the power of self-interest and greed in solving serious technology problems. I do think we'll see some major lifestyle changes in the US and the rest of the "developed" world over the next two decades, and they won't be accomplished easily or eagerly. Life in other parts of the world will become nasty, brutish, and short, and there may be some spillover. BTW, I don't lump Hanson in with the "leftist-green" crowd if only because he seems as dismissive of activists as he is of economists. There's more to be said, but no time at the moment to say it. Later ...

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), April 27, 2000.

Cash & carry, I concur in your assessment about this issue. However, this isn't a technological problem, but a resource problem. Unfortunately this particular natural resource is the basis of our advanced society, and really has no viable alternative.

Credible reports puts the peak in world oil production sometime between 2003 to 2010, with most around 2007. At the very least, oil prices should go up, and drag everything else up along with it.

-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), April 27, 2000.

I dont think we are in too much danger yet, but think we should be spending more $ for research into new engery sources and hybred cars. there are alternitives out there, but wont be used widely til its necessary. Dont think oil will bring us down. The only things that would be natural destruction or war. so dont worry be happy

-- boo (boo@home.com), April 27, 2000.

Hopeful, I agree that it's a resource problem. I'm just optimistic that we can devise a technological fix that replaces or extends the resource in question.. Too many people have too much invested in current society to let it all slip away when oil supplies begin running short. Unlike Boo, I don't think it will be hybrid cars. Not sure what s/he means by new energy sources. The research is pretty conclusive that, for the present, such passing fancies as fuel cells and shale oil end up using more energy to create than they contribute. I'm optimistic about solar and fearful about an upsurge in fission. Neither, of course, will allow Homo Automobilus to survive, but that might not be a bad thing. (Says the guy who commutes 40 miles to work each day.)

Boo, I believe you're wrong about the inability of oil to "bring us down" if alternatives aren't found. Everything you are, from the cereal you ate for breakfast this morning to the computer you used to make your posts to the sheets you sleep between tonight, comes from oil. It is literally the foundation of our civilization, and it won't have to disappear to hurt us. It just has to get scarce. In Zimbabwe today, rising fuel prices have driven up taxi costs to the point that taxi drivers are shooting bus drivers to eliminate the competition for riders. And don't think, "Well, that's lawless Africa." In the 1973-74 energy crisis Americans got into gunfights over cutting into gas station lines. Rachet those emotions up to the international level, add the burning desire of countries like China and India to jump from Second World to First World status in the next 20 years, and you just might get that war you were talking about -- more than one.

But then, I remain optimistic that adjustments can be made, accommodations created, alternatives found. For someone, like me, with children, the dieoff future isn't an option.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), April 28, 2000.