The shrinking pie

[jiang bao]

It’s a pretty scary thought that the world is running out of critical natural resources. I might be dead of old age by the time the sith hits the fan, but for the sake of our progeny it ain’t good. We may have to go back to simplicity of life and roll back technology. Imagine all the frigging wars that will occur as nations fight to secure access to natural resources.

[Trien Chieu]

It’s a pretty scary thought that the world is running out of critical natural resources. I might be dead of old age by the time the sith hits the fan, but for the sake of our progeny it ain’t good. We may have to go back to simplicity of life and roll back technology. Imagine all the frigging wars that will occur as nations fight to secure access to natural resources.

No need to worry, science and technology will solve all problems. We are in the warming period and once all the ice from the north and south poles disappear, ton of natural resources to be discovered. What people need to do is live responsibly.

[Banh Mi]

Upon what evidence do you base there to be more resources under the ice caps, and what resources exactly?

I imagine it would be hard to find a suitable alternative for oil. Our infrastructure is heavily invested in oil for transport and we're near peak, which means that it's going to cost alot more to extract even less oil. The infrastructure would be hard to change, all the oil pumps around the world, all the vehicles, to be replaced by whatever alternative.

[jiang bao]

No need to worry, science and technology will solve all problems. Were are in the warming period and once all the ice from the north and south poles disappear, ton of natural resources to be discovered. What people need to do is live responsibly.

It takes more than just the magical idea of "technology" to actually bring new sources of energy and materials to light without tremendous monetary and energy costs. For example, companies are looking deep beneath the ocean for oil. But finding the reserves deep undersea is one thing, actually bringing it to production is another. It takes a tremendous amount of costs and energy to produce this stuff. Then I've seen some folks trumpet that the Bakken Formation holds great gas and oil. Well, that may be, but how are they gonna extract enough out to make a difference?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/bakken.asp

I have trouble believing that somehow, some technology that doesn't exist today is able to appear one day and suddenly make enough natural resources available to make a big difference. Maybe a breakthrough or two delays the inevitable, but sooner or later there won't be enough to go around for everyone. Now with former third world countries like India and China developing, it just means more strain on a limited amount of natural resources.

What's scary is that because of the prohibitive energy/material/monetary costs and the massive project scale (in time and space) of building enough renewable energy infrastructure to matter, it will be a tough sell to seriously build the needed infrastructure NOW while oil is still relatively cheap. Even though Obama has set forth ambitious goals for alternative energy, his plan still isn't enough. China, despite the bad press about pollution, is my pick to become the forerunner in renewable energy problems because it doesn't have right wingers there to mess things up and from what I see, the commies seem to understand the situation with more foresight than over here in the US. It's the fastest growing nation in wind capacity and it seems dead serious about solar power as well.

With political bickering here in the US, things don't look good for our (Americans') futures. When Americans finally realize what needs to be done, it'll likely to too little too late. The solution will probably be war, to use our military advantage to secure whatever resources we need, but things will get ugly.

[Guo Xiang]

The thing is, will such issues come ahead of profits? We all know what kind of species humans is.

We are the sort who doesn't give a damn until death is staring at us in the eye. We haven't come to that stage yet.

And of all things, most countries and scientists/researchers refuse to look at the core of the problem. They keep looking at symptoms and pushing blame around, but no one (excluding China) has really tried to limit breeding. On the contrary, we are increasing in numbers day by day.

For every one percent of resources we save, there are thousands and thousands more humans born every day to suck up more than that one percent saved. It's not sustainable.

[flamer]

Ice melting from the poles and resources to be discovered there? Apart from the worldwide flooding, that's just stalling the eventual depletion.

What you also need to realise is that since the mid 1900s, there are claims that resources are going to run out, world population getting out of control and food, resources are going to run out. Now in 2009, our oil supply is GREATER than what we had in decades before, our food technology has kept up with our huge population growth. As long as technology grows with our usage (which it has), we're fine.

[jiang bao]

The difference is, right now, we are actually nearing or past the peak or phase for several key commodities whereas decades ago, we weren’t. Oil, silver, phosphate (key fertilizer). Just three that I am aware of. I don’t think technology is magic. If you look at the oil situation, it doesn’t look very good. Republicans have touted recent discoveries and junk, but finding the deposits and being able to recover the oil (how difficult and how expensive) are two different things.

[flamer]

Oil depleting? That was said many times in the last few decades. Situation was thought to be even more dire then.

Even if we are past the peak for oil, I'm sure you agree technology for oil substitutes are also on the rise, compared to decades ago.

[jiang bao]

I really haven't heard much about peak oil theory from decades ago, if it existed. The oil shortage in the 70's was political in nature as OPEC put the squeeze on. Today from what I've seen, I really think that we've passed peak oil. I can't think of any big time oil field discoveries in the last field decades. Plus, today we have more energy demand than before. There are more fast growing countries.

As far as alternatives, it's not easy to set them up. Oil is still one of the cheapest and efficient energy sources around. Even with the improvements in wind and solar power infrastructure in the last 10 years or so, these alternative energies still only account for a small percentage of energy usage. (In the US, I think it's under 10% still. It's been a few months since I've seen the EIA report) The amount of time, money, energy, and materials required to build enough infrastructure to support enough alternative energy to make a difference in the event oil is in short supply is massive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

[Hoju!]

I can't think of any big time oil field discoveries in the last field decades.

Just from September of this year:
BP's Discovery in Deep Gulf of Mexico. BP's Tiber discovery is quoted to have ~ 3 - 4 bn bbl (depending which article you read) of oil-in-place. OF course, how much is recoverable is yet to be seen, but definitely not insignificant.

Also, quoting from the second paragraph of this article about the same discovery, BP's announcement "comes days after Iran unveiled an even larger find of 8.8bn barrels of crude oil." The article goes on to describe how both sides of the peak oil theory may argue for their side.

Of course, treading into deeper and deeper water in order to get that oil comes with a whole suite of challenges but just wanted to say that material oil discoveries are still being made.

[flamer]

jiang bao, even from the wiki page you provided, I found these lines from a simple read.

M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970

M. King Hubbert initially predicted in 1974 that peak oil would occur in 1995 "if current trends continue." However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, global oil consumption actually dropped.

etc etc

The date has been revised again and again "accurately" but technological improvements and discovery of resources are too dynamic for people to predict.

[jiang bao]

Hoju, I know that there have been discoveries lately, but the problem, as I noted in an earlier post, is that it's not easy to extract the finds in these more and more difficult to access areas.

On this Tiber discovery you mention, the world currently uses roughly 85 million barrels of oil a day. Now, even if we assume that demand remains flat until about 2016, when this discovery is expected to begin first production (odds are, oil demand will be higher), the 3 billion barrel discovery (assuming it’s 100% discoverable, again, another generous assumption) means 35 days worth of global consumption. If we more realistically assume a 50 percent recovery rate, that’s about 2 weeks and change worth of supply. The find is expected to produce about 200,000 barrels a day, hardly a “giant” compared to true giant fields like Cantarell and Ghawar. But due to the lack of big discoveries in recent years, it is hailed as such.

Don’t get me wrong, the find’s a definite positive, but I don’t think it really delays the inevitable much at all.

flamer, I think you’re giving technology too much credit. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden oil supply will be plentiful at reasonable prices because of some magical appearance of some new technology. Oil wasn’t up at $147 a barrel last year cuz it was plentiful. Oil is already at $80 despite still relatively weak demand growth. Imagine how high it’ll go when we actually start running out of it.

PS, no one really knows how much oil OPEC has… or any other country that doesn’t get independently audited for that matter.

[Trien Chieu]

The thing is, will such issues come ahead of profits? We all know what kind of species humans is.

We are the sort who doesn't give a damn until death is staring at us in the eye. We haven't come to that stage yet.

And of all things, most countries and scientists/researchers refuse to look at the core of the problem. They keep looking at symptoms and pushing blame around, but no one (excluding China) has really tried to limit breeding. On the contrary, we are increasing in numbers day by day.

For every one percent of resources we save, there are thousands and thousands more humans born every day to suck up more than that one percent saved. It's not sustainable.

To be fair, high population density countries such as India and VietNam also encourage people to have less kids. On the other hand, I agree with you that the world need less people, not more. People should have less kids, no more than 3 per couple and countries with high population density the limit should be 2 kids per couple.

[flamer]

flamer, I think you’re giving technology too much credit. I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden oil supply will be plentiful at reasonable prices because of some magical appearance of some new technology. Oil wasn’t up at $147 a barrel last year cuz it was plentiful. Oil is already at $80 despite still relatively weak demand growth. Imagine how high it’ll go when we actually start running out of it.

Why do you think in 2009, we use LESS oil than we did decades ago? We have more machinery, more population, more gadgets.

On top of that, the market has the ability to adjust if there is a true shortage of oil. Prices will increase and once it passes the point of the cost of alternative resources (solar, wind), they will be employed. Sure, that moment may lead to a recession and perhaps some pain but the price mechanism will allocate accordingly.

[Guo Xiang]

Why do you think in 2009, we use LESS oil than we did decades ago? We have more machinery, more population, more gadgets.

On top of that, the market has the ability to adjust if there is a true shortage of oil. Prices will increase and once it passes the point of the cost of alternative resources (solar, wind), they will be employed. Sure, that moment may lead to a recession and perhaps some pain but the price mechanism will allocate accordingly.

That is the point. Why do we only employ them when it gets to that bad point? Won't you prefer to have more time to adapt to something new, rather than just being thrust into it suddenly?

And the worst thing about it is, WE KNEW. And did absolutely NOTHING about it.

[flamer]

Sure, in an ideal world. However, economically, it doesn't make sense to do that. Unless someone can help price the damage on environment and pass that on to users and manufacturers, it will not happen.

You hear of all these carbon emissions schemes, why do they face so much opposition? They damage the economy. Market failure happens when the damage on environment is not accounted for.

When price of non-renewable resources go up and above alternative resources, you won't need emissions schemes and all that. You will see the data go right down.

[Guo Xiang]

Sure, in an ideal world. However, economically, it doesn't make sense to do that. Unless someone can help price the damage on environment and pass that on to users and manufacturers, it will not happen.

You hear of all these carbon emissions schemes, why do they face so much opposition? They damage the economy. Market failure happens when the damage on environment is not accounted for.

When price of non-renewable resources go up and above alternative resources, you won't need emissions schemes and all that. You will see the data go right down.

The economical part is like a boat having a crack. The owner refuses to repair it because it'd cost him. Over time it just gets bigger and bigger. By the time he wants to repair it, the boat is sinking, and the owner has to pay a lot more than he'd need to had he paid for the initial crack.

But I guess a lot of people are like the owner. We'd need to find a way to fix that financial issue.

[flamer]

The economical part is like a boat having a crack. The owner refuses to repair it because it'd cost him. Over time it just gets bigger and bigger. By the time he wants to repair it, the boat is sinking, and the owner has to pay a lot more than he'd need to had he paid for the initial crack.

But I guess a lot of people are like the owner. We'd need to find a way to fix that financial issue.

That part may not be true. By the time the cost of fossil fuels costs more than other energy sources, no economic loss is sustained (unlike if one uses alternative energy sources now, when cheaper alternatives are available).

The only point may be that not enough development is made into those alternatives and they may not be as cheap as they can be or shortage of alternative energy capabilities the moment fossil fuel runs low.

[jiang bao]

Why do you think in 2009, we use LESS oil than we did decades ago? We have more machinery, more population, more gadgets.

Huh? We use LESS oil than we did decades ago?? Who told you that? That's wrong, obviously.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_inte...eport_2009.xls


Maybe you mean per-capita use, in which case I am not sure if per capita we use less, but even if we did, it means nothing. What matters in terms of pace of depletion is total consumption.

PS,
And notice some oddities in reported oil reserves in the BP report. For example, some OPEC countries reported big jumps in reserves without major discoveries to account for the jump back when the quota was set in place (if you reported more reserves, they could produce more and make more $). And Saudi Arabia’s reserves have hardly moved despite consistent production over the years. Since OPEC’s reserve data is not audited independently, who knows how much they really have. I haven’t looked over the report too much, but the Saudi thing I noticed since it’s a top producer of oil.

[flamer]

According to that report, the world has about 30% more proven reserves and use less oil per capita. I don't really see the danger jiang. Plenty of time for technology to improve, either to reduce usage of oil or increase efficiency of solar/wind/nuclear power. Imagine increasing solar power efficiency to 60%, that'll solve all problems.