When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[apeiron]

Regarding cost for nuclear, this varies considerably by country, another reason why addressing the problem world wide is complicated. In the US yes nuclear capital costs appear to be $5-7 / W(e). However China is throwing up PWBs for $1.6/W(e), or $1.6B for a one GW(e) reactor (as pointed out by https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2115378&postcount=115"r)

An interesting paper challenging your view of the economics of nuclear is...
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

While some have called for the construction of 200 to 300 new nuclear reactors over the next 40 years, the much more modest task of building 100 reactors, which has been proposed by some policymakers as a goal, is used to put the stakes in perspective. Over the expected forty-year life of a nuclear reactor, the excess cost compared to least-cost efficiency and renewables would range from $19 billion to $44 billion per plant, with the total for 100 reactors reaching the range of $1.9 trillion to $4.4 trillion over the life the reactors

And then this paper that argues PV now has a stronger case than nuclear...
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

It is also interesting what it has to say about the hidden costs of nuclear.

Here, the market seems to be speaking!...

The Institute for Southern Studies reported
that as of July 2009 two of the 17 proposed
nuclear projects have had their construction
bonds rated as “junk” status and 13 others are
rated as just one step above junk.

I didn't realize the US taxpayer insured the industry...

The nuclear industry insists on taxpayer insurance
against catastrophic accidents. The
Price-Anderson act caps the liability for an
accident at a level that now totals approximately
$11 billion, which would be distributed
among all reactor owners. Federal studies
estimate that the damage from non-worst
case accidents could exceed $500 billion.

Some in Congress want to do even more. A
new analysis conducted for Friends of the
Earth shows that tax breaks totaling $9.7 billion
to $57.3 billion (depending on the type
and number of reactors) would come on top
of proposed subsidies totaling $35.5 billion
in the Kerry-Lieberman bill. If this bill succeeds,
nuclear plant owners might essentially
bear no risk.

 

[mheslep]

An interesting paper challenging your view of the economics of nuclear is...
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

Challenges what view? That the construction cost of a US reactor is $5-7/W(e) How?

Cooper's estimate that a nuclear plant's operational cost of up to $44B/40 years more than renewables doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'm curious how he comes to that figure, but I'm not inclined to plough through his 78 pg report on nuclear power when we have http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/", unless you want focus on some particular data he presents.

Cooper appears to be a consumer advocate, concentrating on issues like open media and telecom besides this. That's fine, but I'd rather spend time reading scientists, engineers and economists on this one.

 

[apeiron]

An interesting new forecast by Kuwaiti oil engineers predicts peak conventional oil in 2014.

The world production is estimated to peak in 2014 at a rate of 79 MMSTB/D. OPEC has remaining reserve of 909 BSTB, which is about 78% of the world reserves. OPEC production is expected to peak in 2026 at a rate of 53 MMSTB/D. On the basis of 2005 world crude oil production and current recovery techniques, the world oil reserves are being depleted at an annual rate of 2.1%.

http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef901240p

It adds to the chorus of concern coming now from authorative sources...

http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16720_0610_froggatt_lahn.pdf

 

[mheslep]

An interesting new forecast by Kuwaiti oil engineers predicts peak conventional oil in 2014.
It adds to the chorus of concern coming now from authorative sources...

http://peakoiltaskforce.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/final-report-uk-itpoes_report_the-oil-crunch_feb20101.pdf

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16720_0610_froggatt_lahn.pdf

Did you actually compare the Kuwaiti estimates against any of the others?

I looked at one, Brazil, and the Kuwaitis are already falling substantially short of actual production figures. Here's the Kuwaiti estimate for Brazil, in which their model produces a peak production estimate of 2.0 mbbl/d this year, 2010.

Figure 17. Brazil crude oil production model:

Here's EIA, showing actual production in 2008 was 2.4 mbbl/d, already exceeding the Kuwaiti prediction, and by this year will likely be ~2.8 mbbl/d.

[PLAIN]http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/images/br_production.gif
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html Given the well known rapid development of Brazil's offshore oil, seem's like they should have tossed this model away and started over when it produced a 2010 peak. Petrobas, the Brazillian oil co, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/06/AR2009120602442.html" :

that production in Brazil could reach 3.9 million barrels by 2020

That's the incumbent oil company, but it they're right the Kuwait paper is off nearly 100%. As the kids say, duh?

 

[apeiron]

Could this be the reason for the discrepancy?

In 2008, Brazil produced 2.4 million barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil, of which 76 percent was crude oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html

The Kuwaiti study looks at only crude. And 76% brings the actual oil barrels back to 1.8 mbd.

I think you will find that the EIA figure includes .45 mbd of ethanol.

 

[mheslep]

Could this be the reason for the discrepancy?



The Kuwaiti study looks at only crude. And 76% brings the actual oil barrels back to 1.8 mbd.

I think you will find that the EIA figure includes .45 mbd of ethanol.

Good point, I missed that, however, the EIA 2010 crude estimate is then 2.12 mbbl/day using the same fraction of crude, with no indication of a peak occurring this year, and certainly not from the Petrobas estimate of 3.9 mbbl/day by 2020 as reported in the WaPo.

 

[apeiron]

Good point, I missed that, however, the EIA 2010 crude estimate is then 2.12 mbbl/day using the same fraction of crude, with no indication of a peak occurring this year, and certainly not from the Petrobas estimate of 3.9 mbbl/day by 2020 as reported in the WaPo.

Well the beauty of all this is we only have to wait a few years to discover whether the EIA and Petrobas have got it right or are exaggerating.

[PLAIN]http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publisher/achs/journals/content/enfuem/2010/enfuem.2010.24.issue-

[sorry, fig 29 - I'll have to learn how to embed images here]

As an aside, this chart nicely confirms the increasing importance of the middle east as we slither down the other side of Hubbert's peak.

I wonder what China and India think at nights as they look at this graph?

 

[mheslep]

This cite claims to be reporting 2009 Petrobas data here for crude:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01/petrobras-oil-20100120.html

Oil production only topped-out at the daily average of 1,970,811 barrels, a 6.3% increase over 2008, when the average was 1,854,655 barrels per day.

 

[apeiron]

This cite claims to be reporting 2009 Petrobas data here for crude:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01/petrobras-oil-20100120.html

So is this a good test case now?

The model predicts a peak pretty much this year at about 2mbd. But if Petrobas managed to continue its growth rate of the past few years of 5/6 percent, then it should bust through this year to around 207mbb. And 217mbb in 2011.

Someone has got to be wrong! And very soon.

 

[mheslep]

So is this a good test case now?

The model predicts a peak pretty much this year at about 2mbd. But if Petrobas managed to continue its growth rate of the past few years of 5/6 percent, then it should bust through this year to around 207mbb. And 217mbb in 2011.

Eh, 207 mbb/d? 2.07mbb/d?

 

[mugaliens]

Sounds about right. I looked into this in depth eleven years ago, researching a lot of data (raw data (not results from other studies), and from many different sources. I wound up with much the same, with peak oil around 2018, but my conclusions included severe shortages in the mid to late 20s, with a virtual cessation due to depletion by the mid-40s (2046). That was a decade ago, though, so the supplies and usage may have changed somewhat from what was being predicted back then.

 

[apeiron]

Sounds about right. I looked into this in depth eleven years ago, researching a lot of data (raw data (not results from other studies), and from many different sources. I wound up with much the same, with peak oil around 2018, but my conclusions included severe shortages in the mid to late 20s, with a virtual cessation due to depletion by the mid-40s (2046). That was a decade ago, though, so the supplies and usage may have changed somewhat from what was being predicted back then.

So are you battening down the hatches? Do you have a view on how the next 30 years are going to work out in terms of energy/economy/politics?

 

[mugaliens]

So are you battening down the hatches? Do you have a view on how the next 30 years are going to work out in terms of energy/economy/politics?

Somewhat. http://www.aptera.com/". Given its efficiency and the low $/erg of electricity, it's well worth it.

I must admit, though, I'm more partial to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLV8WA-5PKo"... :)

 

[apeiron]

After the US JOE report, now the German army is talking about peak oil...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

The study is a product of the Future Analysis department of the Bundeswehr Transformation Center, a think tank tasked with fixing a direction for the German military. The team of authors, led by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Will, uses sometimes-dramatic language to depict the consequences of an irreversible depletion of raw materials. It warns of shifts in the global balance of power, of the formation of new relationships based on interdependency, of a decline in importance of the western industrial nations, of the "total collapse of the markets" and of serious political and economic crises.

According to the German report, there is "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later."

In the long run, the study goes on, the global oil market, will only be able to follow the laws of the free market in a restricted way. "Bilateral, conditioned supply agreements and privileged partnerships, such as those seen prior to the oil crises of the 1970s, will once again come to the fore."

Since virtually all economic sectors rely heavily on oil, peak oil could lead to a "partial or complete failure of markets," says the study. "A conceivable alternative would be government rationing and the allocation of important goods or the setting of production schedules and other short-term coercive measures to replace market-based mechanisms in times of crisis."

Even more explosive politically are recommendations to the government that the energy experts have put forward based on these scenarios. They argue that "states dependent on oil imports" will be forced to "show more pragmatism toward oil-producing states in their foreign policy." Political priorities will have to be somewhat subordinated, they claim, to the overriding concern of securing energy supplies.
For example: Germany would have to be more flexible in relation toward Russia's foreign policy objectives. It would also have to show more restraint in its foreign policy toward Israel, to avoid alienating Arab oil-producing nations. Unconditional support for Israel and its right to exist is currently a cornerstone of German foreign policy.

 

[mheslep]

Most of the news in the OP Mahr study is regarding peak coal. Mahr has world peak coal at between 2010 and 2050. Yet from EIA we have:

Based on U.S. coal consumption for 2008, the U.S. recoverable coal reserves represent enough coal to last 234 years. However, EIA projects in the most recent Annual Energy Outlook (April 2009) that U.S. coal consumption will increase at about 0.6% per year for the period 2007-2030. If that growth rate continues into the future, U.S. recoverable coal reserves would be exhausted in about 146 years if no new reserves are added.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves
I'm not certain about the definition of 'last', likely EIA is referring to exhaustion and certainly not years to peak. And this is just a US estimate. However, Mahr's peak is mainly based on a nebulous country category he labels 'Rest', for which production is high for a a couple of decades and then vanishes. If we take away the 'Rest' category of coal producers, then world coal production is relatively flat out to 2100 even using his model.

 

[mugaliens]

Most of the news in the OP Mahr study is regarding peak coal. Mahr has world peak coal at between 2010 and 2050. Yet from EIA we have:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves
I'm not certain about the definition of 'last', likely EIA is referring to exhaustion and certainly not years to peak. And this is just a US estimate.

This is based upon known and anticipated coal reserves at expected coal usage rates, not the rates of usage if coal were required to replace petroleum usage after peak oil.

 

[mheslep]

This is based upon known and anticipated coal reserves at expected coal usage rates, not the rates of usage if coal were required to replace petroleum usage after peak oil.

I saw nothing about replacing oil with coal in the Mahr study per the OP.

 

[jwxie]

I remember a few years ago they said the fossil fuels will last by 2040. I guess this was a combination of all types of fuels?

LOL. This is scary. But there are new sites being discovered...
One thing that I don't understand about nuclear energy. How do they power it up, without electricity? LOL

 

[mugaliens]

I saw nothing about replacing oil with coal in the Mahr study per the OP.

Exactly. If we had to do that, we'd be through the coal in much less time.

 

[apeiron]

Forbes interviews Charles Maxwell, senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co, on peak oil (and why to invest in oil sand companies).

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/13/suncor-energy-oil-intelligent-investing-cenovus.html

snippet...

The use of petroleum in the world is now up to about 30 billion barrels per year. The rate at which we have found new supplies of petroleum over the last 10 years has fallen to an average, of only about 10 billion barrels per year.
We're obviously in an unsustainable situation. We are now using up a greater number of barrels that we have found in the recent past and that we have reserved in the ground. We are now beginning to use it up relatively quickly--with scary consequences for the future.

A bind is clearly coming. We think that the peak in production will actually occur in the period 2015 to 2020. And if I had to pick a particular year, I might use 2017 or 2018. That would suggest that around 2015, we will hit a near-plateau of production around the world, and we will hold it for maybe four or five years. On the other side of that plateau, production will begin slowly moving down. By 2020, we should be headed in a downward direction for oil output in the world each year instead of an upward direction, as we are today.

 

[nismaratwork]

Forbes interviews Charles Maxwell, senior energy analyst at Weeden & Co, on peak oil (and why to invest in oil sand companies).

http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/13/suncor-energy-oil-intelligent-investing-cenovus.html

snippet...

The use of petroleum in the world is now up to about 30 billion barrels per year. The rate at which we have found new supplies of petroleum over the last 10 years has fallen to an average, of only about 10 billion barrels per year.
We're obviously in an unsustainable situation. We are now using up a greater number of barrels that we have found in the recent past and that we have reserved in the ground. We are now beginning to use it up relatively quickly--with scary consequences for the future.

A bind is clearly coming. We think that the peak in production will actually occur in the period 2015 to 2020. And if I had to pick a particular year, I might use 2017 or 2018. That would suggest that around 2015, we will hit a near-plateau of production around the world, and we will hold it for maybe four or five years. On the other side of that plateau, production will begin slowly moving down. By 2020, we should be headed in a downward direction for oil output in the world each year instead of an upward direction, as we are today.

Well, that should make for a nice brisk world war...

 

[CAC1001]

From what I've read, we can replace a lot of uses for petroleum with natural gas, we also have nuclear power, also there is a tremendous amount of shale oil and tar sands oil, extraction is just more costly, I've read we can actually synthesize our own hydrocarbons by taking carbon from the air and hydrogen from the water, it is just very costly right now and the infrastructure isn't there.

They are also experimenting with ways to produce hydrocarbons from I think forms of algae or something like that in the oceans (don't know how much could be produced from them though).

 

[apeiron]

From what I've read, we can replace a lot of uses for petroleum with natural gas, we also have nuclear power, also there is a tremendous amount of shale oil and tar sands oil, extraction is just more costly, I've read we can actually synthesize our own hydrocarbons by taking carbon from the air and hydrogen from the water, it is just very costly right now and the infrastructure isn't there.

They are also experimenting with ways to produce hydrocarbons from I think forms of algae or something like that in the oceans (don't know how much could be produced from them though).

Ahh, the magic of science, unchecked by the laws of thermodynamics.

All sorts of things are chemically possible. The debate here is about what is economically practical.

 

[Andre]

Ahh, the magic of science, unchecked by the laws of thermodynamics.

All sorts of things are chemically possible. The debate here is about what is economically practical.

Maybe the debate should also be about what is fear-technical emotional feasible? Without that factor, we might have been happily enjoying nuclear power in prosperity and not worry a second about peak fuels and emissions.

 

[CAC1001]

Ahh, the magic of science, unchecked by the laws of thermodynamics.

All sorts of things are chemically possible. The debate here is about what is economically practical.

Shale oil and tar sands, or even sythesizing oil, are not economically viable now, but by the time we will need to start using them, they probably will be; also the technologies will be significantly more advanced by then I'd imagine.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Shale oil and tar sands, or even sythesizing oil, are not economically viable now, but by the time we will need to start using them, they probably will be; also the technologies will be significantly more advanced by then I'd imagine.

I know with shale oil and tar sands the most cutting edge way of processing them is with wet steam in situ. And the biggest cost in synthetic oil is the process heat.

So to get the costs of these fuel sources down just requires a large amount of cheep low cost per Mw unit of heat. There is a technology out there that dose it, just need to get the "fear" of it straighted out.

 

[mugaliens]

Maybe the debate should also be about what is fear-technical emotional feasible? Without that factor, we might have been happily enjoying nuclear power in prosperity and not worry a second about peak fuels and emissions.

Agreed. Unfortunately, a significant portion of litigation is unnecessary, in part fueled by fears originally held by the litigants, and in part fuelde by fears artificially exacerbated by legal representation. Not all lawyers do this, and most probably do not. It is, however, a factor.

I'm not sure how much of the litigation which halted nuclear development here in the US was either overinflated or unnecessarily raised the cost of nuclear power so much that it was no longer economically feasible as compared to other forms of power production. I do know that at one time it was being billed as cheap power.

 

[apeiron]

Cheap energy = easy economic growth. So peak fossil fuels can be read as a century-long economic super-bubble. And a super correction is thus what we soon face.

So if you want to put your faith in nuclear or alternatives, you have to come up with a credible analysis both of their basic EROEI (energy returned on energy invested - cheap energy has got to be better than 10:1), and whether they can be ramped up fast enough to fill the coming energy gap.

Here are some remarks on this issue from the current ASPO-USA meeting...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7035

Following a break, Dr Robert Hirsch chaired a session on the link between Energy and the Economy, and it was possibly the bleakest of the meeting. Chris Martenson talked about looking at the economy as a straight highway, and then hitting a bend. While models often see progress in linear terms life does not turn out that way. Money is loaned into existence and credit (and thus debt) has increased over time. Since 1970 it has doubled five times. Money and energy have been tied, but while money must continue to grow, energy cannot. Credit market growth (with an R^2 of 0.98) has an exponential relationship with time. He sees the problem not with the individual smaller bubble causes of housing, etc but rather the overall credit size itself.

He sees the problems coming in the 2014-2015 time frame when Peak Oil will be recognized and while growth may continue, prosperity may not.

He was followed by Nicole Foss- who many of us have read under the pen name Stoneleigh. She sees fossil fuels as generating the largest bubble in history. The economy has been driven up by energy, but as that declines what will take its place? In the sense that bubbles are Ponzi schemes where only early investors make a return on their investment, as this one comes to an end as the largest suckers get fleeced, so they collapse to general hurt.

Markets are driven by perception rather than reality. But by the time the general public hears of “a good thing” it is generally over. Hearing the “it’s a new paradigm” should warn you to sell the stock. But the world is driven on emotion. And when there is a collapse it is often sudden, bringing the value down below what it was before the bubble began. (And oil prices are following this model.) From this she could see nothing ahead but progress into a deflation and depression. We are already in a large debt and liquidity trap and as credit disappears the depression will develop and be sustained. The huge derivatives market may be the first to go, given its insignificant intrinsic value.

The problem is in part that it will be based on reducing volumes of oil, and with that reduction there is no possibility of a rebound, since the resource is not there to develop it. Oil has thus hegemonic power. The depression will, however, sustain its dominance since reduced demand will allow it to remain dominant.

The final speaker of the evening was Robert Hirsch, who has also recently co-authored a book – The Impending World Energy Mess which was available in signed copy at the meeting. In large measure his talk followed the book (from which you may gather that I did buy, and have half-read, a copy – and it is worth doing so, I may do a review later). He noted that the economy depends on energy, not the other way around. Further we should expect that the general public will still be surprised when oil supplies start to decline in the next 2 – 5 years. From then they will continue to decline for at least a decade, until alternate sources of fuel become sufficiently available. He covered the oil problem, including their forecast of how it will develop, and what an individual could do about it.

The story is a familiar one to the peak oil community: we are over reliant on a few giant oil fields that are depleting and not being replaced. We have been sensibly in a production plateau since 2005, something not predicted by earlier models, but there are an increasing number of reputable sources that see an end to the plateau, and the consequent decline, coming relatively soon. This will impact GDP and hurt national economies. The recent recession and drop in oil demand may have only shifted the onset of the decline by a few weeks.

It is unrealistic to expect a rapid answer to the decline from politicians. Looking at the likely rate of decline, a 2% fall could be easily handled, a 4% fall could be handled with difficulty, but at 6% it is going to be bad. They have had to guess, and think, at the moment that it will likely be at around 4%.

China, having foreseen this problem, are doing smart things to prepare for it. We in the West are not. It will lead to increased tensions – though they did not look at the potential for resource wars, or the likelihood that producers would withhold production for political or economic reasons.

Looking at individual response, we should all expect to be impacted, and because of the lack of political ability to resolve the issue (or even to address it yet) we should expect that the result will be very similar to the oil shortages of the 70s. There was a degree of panic – this will happen again. This time, however, there will be no North Sea or North Slope to come to the rescue. Nor can the oil taps be opened wider to remediate the problems. As a result he has got out of the market – since good stocks and bonds will be hurt as well as bad. He has added annuities to his portfolio, bought some gold, and moved closer to mass transit and the shops.

He reminded us that this is a liquid fuels problem, while most renewables (wind and solar and hydro) deal with the electricity supply, which is not helpful to the crisis. We also have enough food. The issue is in transportation where we need a substitute for oil.

In questions he was asked about rationing. He fully anticipates it happening, but it will be very complicated to develop and impose. Countries will respond in different ways and become more independent. The United States will have to reindustrialize, since it will not be able to rely on foreign manufacture. We increased productivity by having oil help labor. Now this must reverse.

He did not see the problem being deflation, but rather in the control of inflation. But then it is easier to write a history book than a forecast. He could only see that many people will get hurt in the coming years.

 

[mheslep]

Ahh, the magic of science, unchecked by the laws of thermodynamics.

All sorts of things are chemically possible. The debate here is about what is economically practical.

I suspect you intended to highlight the point that energy is required to produce chemical fuels (and/or to extract them), but nothing CACI said violated the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[mheslep]

Shale oil and tar sands, or even sythesizing oil, are not economically viable now,

Tar sands certainly are viable now with $80/bbl oil, as the Canadians demonstrate daily. Wiki cites $28/bbl production costs (not including diffuse environmental externalities).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Canada

 

[mheslep]

Here are some remarks on this issue from the current ASPO-USA meeting...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7035

Remarks by who? (Dave Summers. Who?). And I don't mean the speaker who Summers(?) remarks upon. I see the speakers included Bianca Jagger?

 

[CAC1001]

Looking at individual response, we should all expect to be impacted, and because of the lack of political ability to resolve the issue (or even to address it yet) we should expect that the result will be very similar to the oil shortages of the 70s. There was a degree of panic – this will happen again. This time, however, there will be no North Sea or North Slope to come to the rescue. Nor can the oil taps be opened wider to remediate the problems.

Is he aware of the shale oil? Tar sands? Natural gas? (we can make fuels from that and from my understanding, we have a ton of it). We also have a tremendous supply of coal, and if required, can turn coal into oil (while the political support isn't there for big domestic mining of coal right now, if things got really bad, I think public concern would override anything the environmentalists would say). We also have oil off the coastlines as well that we do not drill for at the moment.

In questions he was asked about rationing. He fully anticipates it happening, but it will be very complicated to develop and impose. Countries will respond in different ways and become more independent. The United States will have to reindustrialize, since it will not be able to rely on foreign manufacture. We increased productivity by having oil help labor. Now this must reverse.

The United States never deindustrialized. We manufacture more than any other nation on the planet. Not too long ago, our manufacturing sector alone was larger than China's entire economy.

 

[apeiron]

I suspect you intended to highlight the point that energy is required to produce chemical fuels (and/or to extract them), but nothing CACI said violated the laws of thermodynamics.

The point many people fail to get is that the world we are accustomed to has been built on cheap energy. So discussion of alternatives is meaningless unless the full EROEI equation is considered.

 

[apeiron]

Remarks by who? (Dave Summers. Who?). And I don't mean the speaker who Summers(?) remarks upon. I see the speakers included Bianca Jagger?

How can you be confused? All the speakers are named in the snippet.

 

[apeiron]

Is he aware of the shale oil? Tar sands? Natural gas? (we can make fuels from that and from my understanding, we have a ton of it). We also have a tremendous supply of coal, and if required, can turn coal into oil (while the political support isn't there for big domestic mining of coal right now, if things got really bad, I think public concern would override anything the environmentalists would say). We also have oil off the coastlines as well that we do not drill for at the moment.

If you refer back to the OP you will see that people are well-aware of such things. But even those who believe that such resources can be practically exploited are worried that they cannot be brought online in time to avoid real economic and social disruption.

The United States never deindustrialized. We manufacture more than any other nation on the planet. Not too long ago, our manufacturing sector alone was larger than China's entire economy.

True. But that is a minor point in this context. Or rather, reindustrialisation would be "good news" for those who hope for business as usual because it would mean that the economic disruption was proving pretty minor. Peak oilers would instead see "relocalisation" as the coming business model - if we are lucky.