Peak Oil and Climate Change

[Bruce Steele]

Oren, That last bit about the elite “20%” who would sell us austerity to maintain their lifestyle has a note of truth in it however.  Economically we are of course the 20% as is Greer, his readers and most everyone in Europe and the U.S.  Populism without someone else to step on is a no starter so we invent enemies and surprise surprise it is those damned elites !  A familiar ring, and wait until we do hit a bad spot in the growth model. 
 
Edited , don’t forward bad thoughts.reminder to self.
 
 
 

[wili]

oren wrote: "...denial in disguise..."

That's why I've long called him a 'crypto-denialist'

[sidd]

Greer may be many things, but i do not think he is a climate denialist.

As to:

"The shrill claims of impending doom, the insistence that we’re in a climate emergency and everyone has to accept drastic restrictions that climate change activists show no trace of willingness to embrace in their own lives, make perfect sense if the game plan is to buffalo most of the people in the world’s industrial countries into accepting a sharply lower standard of living “for the planet,” so that the upper twenty per cent or so can maintain their current lifestyles unchanged."

he might find more traction replacing "twenty per cent" by "0.1 per cent"

He seems quite impressed by Spengler and various mystics like Crowley. If you have the patience to read his fiction (although i would not recommend it) he spells out his preferred futures. They seem about as simplistic as Heinein's though less readable. Not that Heinlein is very readable ...

That said, he did predict Trump victory about a year in advance. I suppose even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.

sidd

[Tom_Mazanec]

He is no denier, his novel about America half a millennium from now has a seaport at Nashville.
His point is that “ Do as I say, not as I do” is a nonstarter at getting people to change their behavior.

[etienne]

Maybe he is not a denier, but he minimises risks in a way that I can't agree with. His little ice age theory that would have happend because of trees in excess in the Americas also gives false hopes.
He is also wrong when he says that climates activists just want to be able to continue their oil consumption. Many make a real effort to reduce their carbon footprint.
I also believe that the very rich are rich because of our consumption, if we reduce our needs, it would reduce their incomes, so they have no interest in the degrowth concept.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Many signs of peak oil and decline
Posted on November 1, 2019 by energyskeptic
http://energyskeptic.com/2019/failing-oil-and-gas-companies-a-sign-of-peak-oil/

Recently the IEA 2018 World Energy Outlook predicted an oil crunch could happen as soon as 2023.  Oil supermajors are expected to have 10 years of reserve life or more, Shell is down to just 8 years.
Political shortages are as big a problem as geological depletion. At least 90% of remaining global oil is in government hands, especially Saudi Arabia and other countries in the middle east that vulnerable to war, drought, and political instability.
And in 2018, the U.S. accounted for 98% of global oil production growth and since 2008, the U.S. accounted for 73.2% of the global increase in production (see Rapier below).   What really matters is peak diesel, which I explained in “When trucks stop running”, and fracked oil has very little diesel, much of it is only good for plastics, and yet America may well be the last gasp of the oil age if production isn’t going up elsewhere.

And you can't do most transportation with other energy sources, at least until EVs using renewable energy comes fully on line, which is likely to take the whole decade at least.

[wdmn]

Saudi Aramco, the world's most profitable company, is going public this weekend.

In the prospectus released for the IPO they predict that peak oil demand will occur in 2035. In one scenario it occurs as early as 2025, and in another as late as 2045, but 2035 is the date given as expected.

https://www.saudiaramco.com/-/media/images/investors/saudi-aramco-prospectus-en.pdf?la=en&hash=8DE2DCD689D6E383BB8F4C393033D8964C9F5585

[Klondike Kat]

I cannot tell you many times peak oil has been predicted in the past.  No one knows.

[wdmn]

Yes, I am aware of the uncertainty.

It is, however, interesting to hear when peak demand (which is not the same as peak oil) is being predicted by the world's largest producer of oil.

[Klondike Kat]

Actually I missed that part - demand.  Thanks for clarifying.  I can see that as green energy increases and population growth slows.

[Tom_Mazanec]

KK, there will definitely be PO someday. Oil will run out in the 21st, or 22nd or whatever century. It is a finite resource. The only debate is about the time and the reason (exhaustion or replacement or termination of industrial civilization).

[Tom_Mazanec]

This is a denier stance IMHO, just as I suspected. If "the people most concerned about climate change" would change their own lifestyles, climate change would still happen. It would not be drastic at all. There are not enough such people, and their lifestyle is already less consumerist and wasteful compared to the society around them.
Not that I support private jets, but they should be banned for everybody, not just for bleeding heart environmentalists.
And to focus the whole climate change stance on this, is denial in disguise. Ignoring the message and flinging it at the messenger.

oren, he wants to ban private jets for everybody.
He wants to ban all air travel.
He is just pointing out that "Do as I say and not as I do." is not the way to persuade people to change their habits.

[Klondike Kat]

KK, there will definitely be PO someday. Oil will run out in the 21st, or 22nd or whatever century. It is a finite resource. The only debate is about the time and the reason (exhaustion or replacement or termination of industrial civilization).

There will be, if we keep using oil.  This meme keeps resurfacing every 20 years or so, and then fades.

[TerryM]

KK, there will definitely be PO someday. Oil will run out in the 21st, or 22nd or whatever century. It is a finite resource. The only debate is about the time and the reason (exhaustion or replacement or termination of industrial civilization).

Then all that we'll be left with will be abiotic and biotic natural gas.


We'll either continue to make use of this for heating, generation, transportation or whatever, and reduce it to CO2 and water, or we'll allow it to continue to pollute the atmosphere as the much stronger GHG, CH4 (Methane).
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

An explanation of Peak Oil (it is the possible rate of production, given that as you pick the low hanging fruit the amount of energy obtained from expending a fixed amount of energy in extraction goes down):
http://crashoil.blogspot.com/2019/11/explicando-el-peak-oil-de-manera.html

Note: If it says it can't translate, just try again.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Peak diesel:
The diesel peak: 2019 edition
http://crashoil.blogspot.com/2019/12/el-pico-del-diesel-edicion-de-2019.html

Everything indicates that we are, indeed, reaching that critical moment for industrial civilization that represents the gradual decline in diesel production. Diesel is essential not only for a part of private automotive (mostly diesel in Europe, but not in the rest of the world), but especially for trucks, heavy machinery, tractors and ships. Diesel is truly the blood of our civilization and if he begins to lack our economy, he can suffer a true ischemia.

Again, you may have to ask it to translate a couple times.

[kassy]

When even the low hanging fruit is deadly you might not want to eat it...

[Tom_Mazanec]

Hidden and in sight of all
http://crashoil.blogspot.com/2019/12/escondida-y-la-vista-de-todos.html

In fact, if the oil companies continue their increasing divestment, the oil production situation by 2040 could be catastrophic.




It should not be forgotten that oil represents one third of all primary energy consumed in the world, that coal (second source in importance, with almost 30%) is also in decline , that exactly the same happens to uranium and that Natural gas will probably peak next year. The energy sources that provide us with 90% of all the energy consumed today are touching their maximum production, and in the coming decades they will give us less and less energy, in a fall that will sometimes be more gradual and other times It will be faster. And despite so many exaggerations advertised in the media, renewable energies are not in a position to produce so much energy , much less in such a short time.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Giant oil field decline rates and peak oil
http://energyskeptic.com/2020/giant-oil-field-decline-rates-and-their-influence-on-world-oil-production/

Since giant oil fields dominate oil production, the rate they decline at is a good predictor of future world decline rates. In 2007, the 261 giants past their plateau phase were declining at an average rate of 6 % a year. Their decline rate will continue to increase by 0.15 % a year, to 6.15, 6.3, 6.45 % and so on. By 2030 these giants, and the other giants joining them, will be declining at an average rate of over 9 % a year (Hook 2009; IEA 2010).  At this exponentially increasing rate, it will take just 16 years to have just 10% of the oil that existed at peak production.

Dittmar (2016) estimates an annual production decline of 6 ± 1% which implies that after ten years, production will be only 54 ± 6% of what it was at the beginning of those ten years.

[The Walrus]

And yet global oil production has increased every year for the past decade. 

[ralfy]

And yet global oil production has increased every year for the past decade.

At higher energy costs.

[The Walrus]

And yet global oil production has increased every year for the past decade.

At higher energy costs.

Not true.  Crude oil prices have generally declined.  In 2010, it was around $80/bbl, rising to $100 in 2013, but dropping to the $50-60 range in 2019.  While production experienced an average annual increase of 1.7%, process dropped by an average of 2.6% per year.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

[Bruce Steele]

At a higher energy cost of extraction ?  EROEI

[interstitial]

specify money or energy. I think one of you is talking energy and the other money

[blumenkraft]

It's both.

I mean, how is it not a no-brainer that after all these years, the low hanging fruits are gone. Now you have to drill deeper, pump harder, move mountains to extract tar sands, fracking, ...

[kassy]

Poison the water level, emit some methane here and there...

[interstitial]

It's both.

I mean, how is it not a no-brainer that after all these years, the low hanging fruits are gone. Now you have to drill deeper, pump harder, move mountains to extract tar sands, fracking, ...

I don't disagree that oil gets harder to find and extract as easier sources get used up. They also can and often are interrelated.

Money is tied to economics and influenced by many factors. Fracking used to have a higher break even point. Innovation, market forces and regulation are some of things that change the dollar costs. Now fracking is much cheaper than it once was.  so even though wells are deeper dollar costs can and do go down.  I suppose if you attach a dollar value to environmental costs, though no dollar value replaces what is lost, that is less true.

In general overall energy costs just increase. Though here too some efficiencies are possible.

[The Walrus]

For the consumer, the only thing that matters in the price they pay.  Individual drilling, extraction, and transport costs are irrelevant.  As can be seen from the following chart, the price of retail gasoline fell significantly from 2011 to 2019.  This ecludes the much larger drops due to the 2009 and 2020 recessions.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

[ralfy]

Not true.  Crude oil prices have generally declined.  In 2010, it was around $80/bbl, rising to $100 in 2013, but dropping to the $50-60 range in 2019.  While production experienced an average annual increase of 1.7%, process dropped by an average of 2.6% per year.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

What you need to look at is not price but energy cost, energy return on energy invested, and net energy.

[ralfy]

For the consumer, the only thing that matters in the price they pay.  Individual drilling, extraction, and transport costs are irrelevant.  As can be seen from the following chart, the price of retail gasoline fell significantly from 2011 to 2019.  This ecludes the much larger drops due to the 2009 and 2020 recessions.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

It doesn't matter to them but that doesn't reverse diminishing returns.

The gist is that you refer to money which can be created easily, but that doesn't reverse peak oil.

That's why oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s, if not earlier, why oil production per capita peaked in 1979, why conventional production started peaking in 2005, and why we're resorting to shale even though we have around four centuries' worth of oil underground.

[The Walrus]

For the consumer, the only thing that matters in the price they pay.  Individual drilling, extraction, and transport costs are irrelevant.  As can be seen from the following chart, the price of retail gasoline fell significantly from 2011 to 2019.  This ecludes the much larger drops due to the 2009 and 2020 recessions.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=m

It doesn't matter to them but that doesn't reverse diminishing returns.

The gist is that you refer to money which can be created easily, but that doesn't reverse peak oil.

That's why oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s, if not earlier, why oil production per capita peaked in 1979, why conventional production started peaking in 2005, and why we're resorting to shale even though we have around four centuries' worth of oil underground.

You may want to read the following as to why your numbers are out of date.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2018/06/29/what-ever-happened-to-peak-oil/#3988b74d731a

[ralfy]

You may want to read the following as to why your numbers are out of date.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2018/06/29/what-ever-happened-to-peak-oil/#3988b74d731a

The problem with the article is that the chart mixes conventional and unconventional production. As the IEA correctly admitted, conventional production peaked after 2010:

https://www.postcarbon.org/new-u-s-record-level-oil-production-peak-oil-theory-disproven-not/

U.S. conventional production also peaked in 1970:

http://thenextturn.com/years-decades-shale-oil-gas/

Both of these were raised by Hubbert in the 1970s:



That is, a peak in U.S. conventional production between the late 1960s and the early 1970s, and a peak in world conventional production after 1995 + 10 years, or after 2005. His latter forecast was off by 6 years.

Oil discoveries peaked in 1947:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/oil-discoveries-at-a-70-year-low-signal-a-supply-shortfall-ahead

World oil production per capita peaked in 1979:

https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/07/peak-oil-what-peak-oil.html

That's why for many years the oil industry has been experiencing diminishing returns, i.e., increasing amounts of capex in exchange for decreasing amounts of new oil produced unconventionally:

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/global-oil-market-forecasting-main-approaches-key-drivers

To cover that more expensive oil, they've had to take on increasing amounts of debt:

https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503f.htm

That's why the needed oil prices to go up just to cover part of that debt:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-26/oil-industry-needs-to-find-half-a-trillion-dollars-to-survive

And they need to borrow even more. You'll find lots of recent news on these, including additional debt of around $170 billion made just last March. Meanwhile, the EIA was warning that shale production won't last because depletion rates are too high in exchange for capex, among others.

Thus, the point of the article don't make sense: peak oil is a scientific phenomenon driven by physical limitations and gravity, and similar takes place for mining.

The only way to deal with a peak in production is to find new sources of oil, but oil discoveries peaked around 70 years ago for the same reasons. And new sources plus technology and additional credit (which is what we're seeing with unconventional production) can only mitigate peak oil temporarily as every source of oil eventually reaches a peak in production. Worse, additional credit leads to more debt, and higher oil prices needed to cover that debt lead to economic recession.

[Tom_Mazanec]

His latter forecast was off by 6 years.

And four or five of those years were because of the Oil Shocks of the Seventies, which brought about conservation and efficiency, stretching out the curve.

[The Walrus]

You may want to read the following as to why your numbers are out of date.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2018/06/29/what-ever-happened-to-peak-oil/#3988b74d731a

The problem with the article is that the chart mixes conventional and unconventional production. As the IEA correctly admitted, conventional production peaked after 2010:

https://www.postcarbon.org/new-u-s-record-level-oil-production-peak-oil-theory-disproven-not/

That is not a problem.  The chart distinguishes between conventional and unconventional, both of which are continuing to rise (at least through 2015).

[ralfy]

That is not a problem.  The chart distinguishes between conventional and unconventional, both of which are continuing to rise (at least through 2015).

It's a problem because it contradicts his argument. When one type of production is employed to make up for lack in another, that doesn't disprove peak oil but proves it.

Given that, what happened to conventional production will take place for unconventional, too, and given debts needed to maintain the latter, prices needed to cover those debts, and the effects of prices on the global economy, probably prematurely.

[The Walrus]

That is not a problem.  The chart distinguishes between conventional and unconventional, both of which are continuing to rise (at least through 2015).

It's a problem because it contradicts his argument. When one type of production is employed to make up for lack in another, that doesn't disprove peak oil but proves it.

Yes, it is a problem for ralfy, in that it contradicts his argument.  I was stating that it was not a visual problem, because the graph does not mix the two, but keeps them separate.  Both are still increasing, which contradicts his argument that conventional peaked in 2005.

[ralfy]

Yes, it is a problem for ralfy, in that it contradicts his argument.  I was stating that it was not a visual problem, because the graph does not mix the two, but keeps them separate.  Both are still increasing, which contradicts his argument that conventional peaked in 2005.

Global production will always go through an undulating plateau because there are many sources involved:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs

That is, any gains for some years are negated by lower production during subsequent ones.

What's important is that other sources are needed to make up for the lack of production, whether or not it is increasing. That makes the title and the point of the article meaningless and invalidates the ridiculous implication that peak oil somehow disappeared. It never did and never will.

More important, the effects of peak oil can take place even before production reaches a peak, which is what happened after 2005.

[The Walrus]

Yes, it is a problem for ralfy, in that it contradicts his argument.  I was stating that it was not a visual problem, because the graph does not mix the two, but keeps them separate.  Both are still increasing, which contradicts his argument that conventional peaked in 2005.

Global production will always go through an undulating plateau because there are many sources involved:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs

That is, any gains for some years are negated by lower production during subsequent ones.

What's important is that other sources are needed to make up for the lack of production, whether or not it is increasing. That makes the title and the point of the article meaningless and invalidates the ridiculous implication that peak oil somehow disappeared. It never did and never will.

More important, the effects of peak oil can take place even before production reaches a peak, which is what happened after 2005.

The effects of peak oil were predicted to be rising prices, due to scarcity.  The production actually declined due to falling prices (as shown in your graph), caused by reduced demand.  Oil production never did peak, and I cannot say if it ever will.

[ralfy]

The effects of peak oil were predicted to be rising prices, due to scarcity.  The production actually declined due to falling prices (as shown in your graph), caused by reduced demand.  Oil production never did peak, and I cannot say if it ever will.

Oil prices have been going up and down for more than 150 years:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/155-years-of-oil-prices-in-one-chart/

At least from 1900 onward, production has been on an uptrend:

https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5944

Meanwhile, as shown in my previous posts, oil discoveries peaked before 1950, oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and the IEA acknowledged that conventional production is peaking as well.

These plus others

http://theoildrum.com/node/5576

makes the claim that oil production didn't peak and never will questionable.

[The Walrus]

At least from 1900 onward, production has been on an uptrend:

https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5944

With this I can agree.  According to those in the industry, production is still on that uptrend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/peak-oil-specimen-case-apocalypic-thinking.amp.html

It may peak at some point in the future, but any claim that it has occurred in past, is refuted by the actual data.

[ralfy]

With this I can agree.  According to those in the industry, production is still on that uptrend.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/peak-oil-specimen-case-apocalypic-thinking.amp.html

It may peak at some point in the future, but any claim that it has occurred in past, is refuted by the actual data.

I think that article combines conventional and non-conventional production. If you read Hubbert's paper, you will see that he specifically refers to the former. For the latter, he gives only estimates because there were fewer details about them back in the 1950s. See for yourself:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

In short, the increase is attributed to tight oil needed to make up for conventional production. That doesn't disprove peak oil but prove it: at some point one source will peak in production and has to be replaced by another.

This is also happening on a global scale, but this time revealing another aspect of the scientific phenomenon: the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks. That is, if demand is high enough, then production won't be able to catch up and other sources will be needed:

https://www.postcarbon.org/new-u-s-record-level-oil-production-peak-oil-theory-disproven-not/

And Hubbert predicted that, too. He stated in 1976 that because of the previous oil crunch peak oil was pushed by around a decade, leading to a peak in conventional production after 1995 + 10:



The IEA believed the same in its 2010 report:

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2010

Hubbert was off by around five years because conventional production still recovered in 2011-2012, and then went down after.

What is more important than that is demand. Back in 2006, the IEA predicted that demand would reach 115 Mbd by 2015 thanks to a robust global economy, and that oil producers would easily meet that because there's no peak oil, only above-ground problems. In 2008, a global financial crash led to weak global economic growth across a decade and demand that's barely reaching 100 Mbd today. And to meet even that demand we still need unconventional production.

Thus, we avoided one of the effects of peak oil--a resource crunch--that would have led to a global economic crash because of soaring debt which led to the 2008 crash. Ironically, part of that debt went to the oil industry which needed increasing amounts of money to get more expensive oil. That's why according to the BIS they now have accumulated debts of at least $2.5 trillion, and in order to pay only $500 billion of that, they need oil prices to go up to around $80. Worse, they have to borrow more because capital expenditures have been going up, and to play for that plus the remaining $2 trillion in debt, oil prices have to go up even more.

Guess what happens when oil prices go up.

Finally, peak oil took place many times in the past:

http://theoildrum.com/node/5576

[The Walrus]

Here is an insightful article on peak oil. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618303207

"So, the peak oil idea was based on solid theoretical foundations. The quote “when I have new data, I change my interpretation, what do you do, sir?” is attributed to John Maynard Keynes and one wonders why it was not applied to the peak oil theory. With new data in input on the consistency of the non-conventional oil resources, the theory could still provide useful information on the future of fossil fuels, but this was not done."

Yes, peaks have occurred in the past.  Prices peaked in 1979 and 2008.  Before COVID, crude oil prices (adjusted for inflation) were below levels from 1976.  Recent levels are lower, similar to 1990 levels.

[ralfy]

Here is an insightful article on peak oil. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618303207

"So, the peak oil idea was based on solid theoretical foundations. The quote “when I have new data, I change my interpretation, what do you do, sir?” is attributed to John Maynard Keynes and one wonders why it was not applied to the peak oil theory. With new data in input on the consistency of the non-conventional oil resources, the theory could still provide useful information on the future of fossil fuels, but this was not done."

Yes, peaks have occurred in the past.  Prices peaked in 1979 and 2008.  Before COVID, crude oil prices (adjusted for inflation) were below levels from 1976.  Recent levels are lower, similar to 1990 levels.

Ugo Bardi is part of the group that discusses Limits to Growth and even ASPO:

https://clubofrome.org/member/bardi-ug/

which explains the points raised before the quote you gave:

These were serious problems, but it must also be said that the weakness of the theory ceased to exist when it was understood that the bell shaped curve is just a simplified version of the general theory of mineral depletion [33] based on the concepts developed first by J. Forrester [34] and by the authors of the 1972 “Limits to Growth” report [35] (For a modern version of these models, see the recently developed MEDEAS model at www.medeas.eu). In short, the basis of the bell shaped curve is in the decline in the net energy of extraction, a concept often expressed in terms of “Energy Return On Energy Invested” (EROI or EROEI) [36,37]. So, the peak oil idea was based on solid theoretical foundations.

And if you look up the point of net energy, you will discover that it refers to Bardi's "Seneca cliff":

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-12/the-real-energy-return-of-crude-oil-smaller-than-you-would-have-imagined/

The term refers to Seneca's statement: "Fortune is of sluggish growth, but ruin is rapid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_effect

[Tom_Mazanec]

Off The Cuff: The Coming Oil Shortage Of June 2021
https://www.peakprosperity.com/off-the-cuff-the-coming-oil-shortage-of-june-2021/

In this week’s Off The Cuff podcast, Chris and Art Berman discuss:

US oil consumption is down ~15%, a good proxy of GDP shrinkage
Why US oil production will be dramatically lower by next June
Why the US may never produce as much oil as it did between 2016-2019
Why oil, not interest rates, will be the limiter of economic growth going forward
For many years on this website we’ve warned of the coming crisis of “Peak Cheap Oil”. We may now be entering a new, accelerating stage of that story.

Petroleum geologist Art Berman returns to the program to explain why he predicts US oil production will be materially lower by next June, and why it will likely never return to its 2016-2019 highs.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Welcome To Easter Island
https://www.peakprosperity.com/welcome-to-easter-island/

The current ‘plan,’ such as it is, centers on growth, growth and more growth.  If we wait until it’s brain-dead obvious that oil is a dwindling resource because that’s what a decade’s worth of data says (sometime around, say, 2030 to 2040) then it will be too late. By then we’ll have another 1-2 billion people on the planet to worry about.  And quite possibly, ruined ecologies that no longer support as many people, to boot.

[oren]

Who cares that oil is a dwindling resource? I wish it was dwindling faster. Humanity is committing suicide by fossil fuels, and the peak oil folks are still blathering about oil running out at some point, as if that would be a bad thing.

[Tom_Mazanec]

It would be a bad thing for humans, but good for other living things.

[SteveMDFP]

It would be a bad thing for humans, but good for other living things.

Existing proven reserves are more than sufficient, if we don't dawdle about the transition to renewables.

[Tom_Mazanec]

That's a pretty big if, Steve.

[oren]

Even if we don't transition fast enough, it's far better to run out of oil than to run out of habitable climate.