6 ms·
US oil production did, in fact, peak in 1970 and declined for decades afterward. Production only started to increase again about 15 years ago with the widesprea
by AdamH12113 3y ago
US oil production did, in fact, peak in 1970 and declined for decades afterward. Production only started to increase again about 15 years ago with the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
EDIT: To be clear, I am responding to a specific, narrow idea implied by the parent comment: that there was a prediction of peak oil in 1970, and that that prediction failed. I wanted to clarify the history. I know that global oil production continued to increase.
- kfrzcode 3y agoProductions; what about reserves?
- dwighttk 3y agoProduction is not the same as existence
- stouset 3y agoEvery year global we discover fewer additional oil reserves than what we are currently burning. Not that it matters. If we burn what we’ve already discovered, we’ll already be completely fucked from a greenhouse gas perspective.
- m00x 3y agoWe were heading into an ice age, which would be just as bad for humans. The issue is that we built a bunch of things that depend on the current climate, but the climate has been changing for a long time and will keep changing. We need to adapt to it or find a way to adapt it. The holocene is an incredibly small period compared to the age of the Earth. Nature doesn't gaf, it'll cycle in and out and we'll have to adapt.
- flir 3y agoIt's not the direction, it's the velocity.
- sheepdestroyer 3y agoNot taking the extreme and unprecedented rate of temperature change into account is either ignorance or disingenuity. https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/ It's probable that very few species will be able to adapt to such an abrupt change.
- SoftTalker 3y agoAdaptation happens when it's forced to happen.
- 3000000001 3y agoYes, but there is always the second half of “adapt or die” to consider
- SoftTalker 3y agoYes, that's how evolution works. Those with a survival advantage succeed. Mother Nature doesn't hand out consolation prizes.
- hughesjj 3y agoIt sounds like you're advocating we don't compete and instead just die/go extinct
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoThis literally doesn’t mean anything
- hughesjj 3y agoThey also happen when they're not forced to (competition), and sometimes they don't happen when they're forced to (extinction).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aiauthoritydev 3y agoThis is a very common misconception. Production is all that matters and existence is completely irrelevant independently. Production factors in existence and future expected existence. For example if any oil rich nation thinks oil going to run out they will hoard it for future so they can make money. But some get pedantic and ask "But isnt number of Oil molecules in earth finite?" Such pedantism can be easily blowm away by responding with pedantism. Oil molecules on "earth" might be finite but in universe they are infinite. Even if the molecules are finite atoms of Carbon and Hydrogen are vastly infinite in universe. We already know how to merge these atoms to form hydrocarbons. These arguments then get into the saner territory of "but isnt it too expensive to bring water from Jupiter and turn it into Oil on moon and then ship it to earth?", yes it is compared to fracking but fracking was considered too expensive compared to drilling which was considered too expensive compared to using mined coal etc. Ignore existence and focus on "production". As far as production is concerned we are not going to run out of oil ever. Unless we stop "needing" it.
- earthling8118 3y agoWhile the resources are out there it's very feasible that we could become locked into a scenario where it is out of reach. I don't particularly care for letting the cost stop us from taking it from outside Earth, but the prerequisite for doing so is having enough energy available to accomplish the goal. Which is a path we could easily close off for ourselves.
- aiauthoritydev 3y agoNothing you have said contradicts what I have said. I said the same thing.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYes. Think people have impression we are energy independent and Scot-free because of fracking. Really, fracking was a second chance. A reprieve. We'll just be behind 8-ball again if we don't take this reprieve and grow some other energy source.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI do not really understand why we are obsessed with energy independence. It only matters if we were to ban exports which is an absurd thing to do.
- rectang 3y agoStrong US domestic energy production disempowers petro-state dictatorships such as Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. whose interests and values are not aligned with ours.
- Aerbil313 3y agoBurning and bombing their countries down to the ground works pretty well too.
- rectang 3y agoThe sharp ramp up of US oil production happened under the "all of the above" energy policy of Obama, who famously opposed that burning and bombing. Energy independence is vastly preferable to waging war, and may be worth making some environmental tradeoffs for — even if we would like to see cleaner alternatives to fracking in the long run.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> Energy independence is vastly preferable to waging war, and may be worth making some environmental tradeoffs Environmental collapse will lead to wars, so this statement is self-contradicting. In fact the sooner we run out of oil, the better - high oil prices mean that any alternative will get huge investment. France built out nuclear due to an oil price shock.
- rsanek 3y agocheck out worldwide production. except for the 80s, it's been consistently increasing for at least 120 years. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-country?country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/oil-production-by-country...
- moffkalast 3y agoGreat news for climate change.
- aiauthoritydev 3y ago[flagged]
- tasty_freeze 3y agoI'm sure you have read that from multiple sources. But I'd LOVE to know you in person and bet real dollars. Let's bet $10,000 on any of the IPCC estimates from the past 25 years and see if those old predictions overstated the problem. I'm sure you've been TOLD that, but it isn't true. The writers of the IPCC reports are aware of the political danger of overshooting, and they intentionally understate the severity of the problems. It chaps endlessly that thousands of climate researchers spend decades of their live researching the problem, often going to inhospitable places for months at a time to collect data. Papers are written, conferences are held, and conservative summaries produced. Yet some dingleberry paid for by the Koch brothers (having done no research and having written no papers) will say, "Nuh uh, their predictions are wrong again, they are being paid by Soros" or some other BS, and a large portion of the pubic believes them over the tens of thousands of man-years of research. EDIT: to make this more substantive, potholer54 is a youtuber who mostly debunks climate change denier claims. Why should you listen to him? In his own words, "Don't, you can do it yourself by reading primary sources." Unlike people like Anthony Watt (popular and influential climate denier) who spout claims and provide no sources, potholer provides links to all of his sources. He is a sober person, not a bomb-thrower. Not that it matters, but he has a degree in geology and has spent his life as a science reporter. He makes no money off his channel and spends the time researching because climate change denial is a severe problem. Here is a good starter video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk