How will you ride the slide? 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   odograph Posted 10:40 pm
   02 Dec 2007

   rate of declineI was going to say something, but when Big Gav says (at the link you give) "I was viewing it as more of a doomer porn cartoon than a literal prediction of the future."
   I hardly need say more.

   Permalink

2. 

   odograph Posted 10:41 pm
   02 Dec 2007

   nicely doneIt is a nicely done cartoon though ;-)

   Permalink

3. 

   justlou Posted 11:48 pm
   02 Dec 2007

   What Slide?I'm gonna be on the UP elevator with all the  winners!

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 5:49 am
   03 Dec 2007

   One of the disturbing things about Peak OilOne of the disturbing things about focusing on Peak Oil, is that if we really wanted, we could have as much hydrocarbons as we want for quite some time.
   Catch being that the hydrocarbons would merely be dirtier and dirtier to produce.
   
   Tar Sands, Heavy Oils, Oil Shale, Coal to Liquids
   
   There's more than enough of that to last us well into the next century and beyond.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
   _
   Which really begs the question, which issue is the bottom line one which is most imporant?
   The price of oil?
   
   Or global warming?
   And which issue are we actually framing as the top prioriety?

   Permalink

5. 

   Colin Wright Posted 1:43 pm
   03 Dec 2007

   Fasten your seatbelts!GreyFlcn, it's not a matter of either/or, regarding peak oil and climate change activism. Long-term, global warming is obviously more important.
   But in the short term we have to integrate peak oil into our thinking and, consequently, our plans and actions. As you suggest, there will be rush to coal-to-liquids as soon as imported oil becomes harder and harder to get. We need to be prepared to counteract those forces.
   With regards to tar sands, there may be substantial deposits of these things, but even the most optimistic oil executives don't expect more than 5 mbd from Alberta in the coming decades. This (and the Venezuelan tar sands) won't be able to off-set quickly enough the depletion from mature fields.
   Despite billions of dollars spent in research, oil shale extraction has been a bust -- the energy profit ratio is just too low.
   This is why even the oil companies and the IEA predict increasing tightness in the oil markets after 2011.

   Permalink

6. 

   biggav Posted 9:09 pm
   03 Dec 2007

   Not either/orColin hits the nail spot on its head here.
   Its not an either / or question - we need to keep both issues in mind as there are a lot of feedback effects between the two - scrambling to replace declining crude oil supplies by turning to Canadian tar sands, Venezuelan heavy oil, shale oil (which is undergoing a revival of interest and is not entirely impractical even if the side effects are awful - see my latest update here - http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2007/12/queensland-shale-o ...) and coal to liquids programs.
   Peak oil has the potential to make our carbon emissions jump very quickly if we aren't careful (ie. successful at moving away from liquid fuels for transportation).
   And Odo - I'm glad you read the comments - I was hoping my editorial position on this stuff is well known by now, but apparently it ain't so...
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   cjwirth Posted 9:47 pm
   03 Dec 2007

   Not much carbon leftThere is not much carbon left that is usable. Oil sands in Canada will yield a maximum of 3 million barrels per day, coal has peaked, and oil shale will not yield anything. See pages 16 to 40: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
   
   cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com

   Permalink