3 ms·

Peak Oil as a model of disaster is not so unbelievable. When you have a steadily growing production, say 7%, of a finite ressource that uses a growing amount X

by onli 12y ago

Peak Oil as a model of disaster is not so unbelievable. When you have a steadily growing production, say 7%, of a finite ressource that uses a growing amount X of the finite ressource Y each tick, you can arrive at the point where in one tick you use up all that was remaining of Y. In reality, it's not so simpel because there are untapepd sources that become available with higher prices and technological advances, and governements like the USA have proven to be willing to trade ground water plus security against oil and gas. But the peak oil model could still hold true - we just don't seem to be able to predict the when. And the production is distributed, so the wells won't stop at the same time, so prices could indeed regulate the transition a bit. But that only works if that process is slow enough -> peak oil doubts that. Edit: hihi, downvotes. Guess I made many hidden attacks -.-

ObviousScience 12y ago
Your first paragraph gives a great demonstration why the GP post thinks that most conversations about peak old "disasters" are silly, and your second paragraph and third paragraphs admit as much, despite you leading off with it not being so unbelievable. Your comment basically reads "Peak oil isn't ridiculous if you believe the entire globe is so unaware of what they're individually doing that they're going to run out of oil without any warning their own wells are going dry, because the wells aren't operated collectively, so we require ALL the operators do this at the same time in the same manner. Also, there isn't going to be a decades long transition because all of these people are on exactly the same schedule because... er.... Also! No one will switch to other power to lower the demand on in-the-ground oil because as I just said, it'll all happen at the same time incredibly fast." I mean, I guess you're welcome to believe it, but it relies on several facts that just aren't true, and is too simple of a model to fit if those facts are included.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  The key fact you have to believe is only that people are short-sighted and selfish actors. Which is easy for me to believe.
  - ObviousScience 12y ago
    No, you require that /everyone/ be short sighted and at the same time, not actually looking after their own interests. While I do agree that people are generally selfish, my experience with various executives across industries is that they're hardly stupid, and that there are many smart people working on the world's problems, even if only to make a buck off it. More to the point, I only need to think that a one-in-a-million person cares to do anything about the "peak oil problem", is intelligent, and is in a position to do so in order to believe that there are 7,000 people working actively on it. There are only a few hundred major oil companies globally, meaning that each one will like have a dozen (or more, for larger ones) people who are intelligent, highly motivated one-in-a-million people working on it. I think you greatly underestimate the number of people and the scale at which humans currently operate. It would be borderline impossible for them to all be short-sighted in the same way, at the same time, given the sheer number of people who are working on the problem, particularly given that there's a strong economic incentive to not make that mistake. tl;dr: No, your belief requires that literally everyone in the oil industry thought process (tens or hundreds of thousands of people) not be looking after their own self-interests if they're driving the bus off a cliff, and that they will all do so in the same manner and at the same time.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    If people who possess oil reserves are short-sighted and selfish actors they will certainly try to hold on to those reserves in expectation of large future price increases.
Retric 12y ago
In theory future's markets can help regulate prices to avoid harmful price trashing. However, evidence suggests even without peak oil markets create 'false' price spikes. Which is where futures market's are useful. If your farm/factory can setup a futures contract with an airline then you can remain profitable for a while even if the price falls.

by onli 12y ago

ObviousScience 12y ago

Your first paragraph gives a great demonstration why the GP post thinks that most conversations about peak old "disasters" are silly, and your second paragraph and third paragraphs admit as much, despite you leading off with it not being so unbelievable. Your comment basically reads "Peak oil isn't ridiculous if you believe the entire globe is so unaware of what they're individually doing that they're going to run out of oil without any warning their own wells are going dry, because the wells aren't operated collectively, so we require ALL the operators do this at the same time in the same manner. Also, there isn't going to be a decades long transition because all of these people are on exactly the same schedule because... er.... Also! No one will switch to other power to lower the demand on in-the-ground oil because as I just said, it'll all happen at the same time incredibly fast." I mean, I guess you're welcome to believe it, but it relies on several facts that just aren't true, and is too simple of a model to fit if those facts are included.

sliverstorm 12y ago
The key fact you have to believe is only that people are short-sighted and selfish actors. Which is easy for me to believe.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  No, you require that /everyone/ be short sighted and at the same time, not actually looking after their own interests. While I do agree that people are generally selfish, my experience with various executives across industries is that they're hardly stupid, and that there are many smart people working on the world's problems, even if only to make a buck off it. More to the point, I only need to think that a one-in-a-million person cares to do anything about the "peak oil problem", is intelligent, and is in a position to do so in order to believe that there are 7,000 people working actively on it. There are only a few hundred major oil companies globally, meaning that each one will like have a dozen (or more, for larger ones) people who are intelligent, highly motivated one-in-a-million people working on it. I think you greatly underestimate the number of people and the scale at which humans currently operate. It would be borderline impossible for them to all be short-sighted in the same way, at the same time, given the sheer number of people who are working on the problem, particularly given that there's a strong economic incentive to not make that mistake. tl;dr: No, your belief requires that literally everyone in the oil industry thought process (tens or hundreds of thousands of people) not be looking after their own self-interests if they're driving the bus off a cliff, and that they will all do so in the same manner and at the same time.
- tsotha 12y ago
  If people who possess oil reserves are short-sighted and selfish actors they will certainly try to hold on to those reserves in expectation of large future price increases.

Retric 12y ago

In theory future's markets can help regulate prices to avoid harmful price trashing. However, evidence suggests even without peak oil markets create 'false' price spikes. Which is where futures market's are useful. If your farm/factory can setup a futures contract with an airline then you can remain profitable for a while even if the price falls.