Is Bakhtiari right?

[Vortex]

Have you seen Dr. Albert Bartlett's lecture?

Yes, I have. I'm aware what 10% annually compounded looks like!

However I feel that the "frog in a heated pan of water" effect will prevent unrest for some years- and perhaps forever. Our standard of living will however decline.

Just look at how little the populace has reacted despite a doubling of tax take since Labour has been in power? Nasty changes will be lived with, especially if gradual & concealed in a flurry of other activity.


I don't think Vortex was meaning that things would fall apart of their own accord in a chaotic fashion over a few weeks. I got the impression he meant that the government would decide at a certain point that the situation was becoming very serious, and over a period of a few weeks would put some drastic plans into action.

I hadn't real though about it to that level - but yes, the Government would hold things together - and introduce "patriotic" laws for "the common good".

The downward ratchet effect described by mikep sounds like a highly probable scenario.

[Keela]

Joe. Thanks for the link to that lecture. Worth the read.

[Andy Hunt]

And you know what? Even I didn't expect the crash to come as quickly as it did. I figured there'd be a year or two of slightly depleting returns. Me, who considers herself totally informed on what happens when an exponentially increasing population crashes into depleting resources. Outrageous. Shameful.

So be warned. Even when you're in the know, things will look entirely fine right up until the moment it's too late to do anything.

This coming from you, Tess, makes me really worried.

I have tried to see both sides of the slow/fast crash argument, for the sake of balance. But there are so many factors which would exacerbate a crash - exporting countries with spiralling populations suddenly cutting off the exports, over-reported reserves suddenly not coming out of the ground any more etc etc.

This winter could be very interesting. Somehow I just don't trust prices at the moment to reflect the reality of the situation.

Tess - do you think it is possible for the whole market to be deluding itself? After all, in a way resource depletion represents a failure of the market to address some fundamental supply issues for the world. Could it be that the market is wishing its way to more energy supplies?

[RevdTess]

This coming from you, Tess, makes me really worried.

Admittedly it was only a simulated business game. In real life we have governments to impose rules like quotas to limit resource depletion. But I have no doubt that in the absence of government control, business would consume the world to a shrivelled wasteland before thinking for a moment about restraining the profit motive.

Tess - do you think it is possible for the whole market to be deluding itself? After all, in a way resource depletion represents a failure of the market to address some fundamental supply issues for the world. Could it be that the market is wishing its way to more energy supplies?

Markets alone will always fail to prevent resource depletion. As more an more businesses jump on a particular bandwagon, the number of people who know how to exploit a resource only increases, until the resource is exhausted, at which point the businesses move onto something else. If we're lucky, the resource may then regenerate (eg in the case of fish stocks) but history shows us that without government control of quotas, these regenerated resources are simply exploited to extinction again, even though everyone knows what will happen.

Or in the case of nonrenewable resources the assumption is that as one resource depletes, another will replace it. To those seeking investment returns it may not matter that one resource is inferior to another. What matters is where the best returns are from one month to the next. It's not a mindset that pays much attention to the happiness or sustainability of human life.

[snow hope]

This chap Bakhtiara has spent 40 years in the oil industry. Imo that means he knows what he is talking about. It is interesting that he strongly backs Dr Colin Campbell's (ASPO) database of reserves.

He is basically saying we have reached Peak and that it is only one way from here - downhill. This should be ringing alarm bells everywhere, but of course it is not. It doesn't fit the "game" we are all supposed to be playing.

At least the Australian Govt is up front about Peak Oil and are listening to people like him. We have to keep reminding ourselves that the Govts. all know about PO - they are not stupid. They are just putting legislation in place to be able to continue control and governance. We have seen it happening in the US and we can see it happening in the UK too.

Even though I accept PO completely, I find reading articles like that still have the ability to shock and depress me. As somebody else said his depletion model is based on 3% depletion - what will we do if it is 6% or 10%?

I still think we are seriously under-estimating the impact this is going to have on our society when PO becomes obvious to the majority of Western people. This will probably only occur when the markets crash or masses of people start failing to repay their debts, or house prices slump by 25%, or fuel goes into shortage and rationing is introduced, or heating / electricity cuts off for millions in a cold spell.

All we can try and do is to prepare.

[RevdTess]

This chap Bakhtiara has spent 40 years in the oil industry. Imo that means he knows what he is talking about.

The problem is we're all stuck with crappy data and making assumptions about the parts of the system we can't see.

[Blue Peter]

This chap Bakhtiara has spent 40 years in the oil industry. Imo that means he knows what he is talking about. It is interesting that he strongly backs Dr Colin Campbell's (ASPO) database of reserves.

If you look at the link which I gave near the top of this thread, you will see that Bakhtiari and ASPO diverge over what happens next,


Peter.

[acrowe]

I think I am going to sound like a hopeless optimist here, but ...

I seriously doubt we will see a sudden awareness of PO due to declining supplies. I see us falling into a crisis due to some 'event' (which will be reported more like a one off thing) which results in a 1970's style situation (probably quite a bit worse) everyone gets annoyed at the government etc etc, the resulting crisis will put us into recession/depression and cause reduced demand for a start. Then there will be a period of anger and maybe even reflection among certain people and groups (crucial time for people in the know to talk about PO as people will be receptive, nothing like your life style being forced to change to get people interested in things ) and then actions will begin to be taken, and believe me when a government is being attacked from all side by its people and media it will act, it can act in much larger/faster and substantial ways than we generally think of governments acting.

I think one of the greatest mistakes PO pessimists make is under estimating the vast quantities of oil we can save through efficiency and by just not using it for useless sh!t. One of the Ironic things is just how wasteful we are may well give us a bigger cushion to lose in the first decade or so. I have heard many of the arguments about the energy saved just going into being consumed somewhere else, but I do not agree with that assumption within the context of a changed view of energy within society after a crisis (yes I believe people and society change rapidly when compelled to do so and much faster then many pessimist would admit). I also think we will develop some pretty useful tech in the next 10-20 years, which can be rolled out quicker than currently thought (there is the optimist in me again )

Now don?t get me wrong, we are in for hard times and there is much work to do to get us through this coming crisis (guess it depends what you define as 'getting through it' also). Things are going to change massively and there are going to be periods of real trouble. But to subscribe to a 'run to the hills' scenario imo is more an act of mental laziness, it does not allow for a positive reaction or engagement with others and when you look at it more closely does not really have much grounding in the world we live in be it economically or socially, it does however provide a concise and pre-packed view to accept then stop thinking for yourself. I often feel people just long for the more extreme ideas PO to come true because they see our society as so broken and corrupt that it deserves to crumble.

A question I often find myself pondering is how different countries will react after the initial crisis, what you guy think? Who would you bet on coming out the best?

[isenhand]

and believe me when a government is being attacked from all side by its people and media it will act, it can act in much larger/faster and substantial ways than we generally think of governments acting.

I think in this sort of scenario the government would ?react? rather than ?act? and the type of action I think we could describe as being quick, hasty and lacking long term thinking. More like ?hay, we?re doing something? than carting out some intelligent long term action benefiting everyone.

[Pippa]

Acrowe

We all want to be optimists but when it actually comes down to trusting your life and future to someone would you rather go with the pessimists, the realists or the optimists? Possibly, more probmatically, how are you going to decide who's who?!

I disagree with your inferance that when pushed by the people the government will hastily act for the common good because if you look at what the government (for the UK and Europe) has done up to now all that I can really see is that they have added tier upon tier of complicated and depressing unnecessary legislation, added untold extra paper cost to every thing we do, multiplied the general feeling of unrest - by which I mean encouraged migration all around Europe (and particularly in the case of the UK encouraged world migration - 500,000 people left the UK in 2005), and created new laws that have overthrown the justice system in the UK and replaced it with a new world order that denies the civil rights of individuals to privacy, freedom of speach and access to the law in any meaningful way.
Do you really believe that there have been no good reasons for the government to act the way they have 'til now (because the suggestion that when pushed they will be able to suggests that you don't); if so, I suggest, that you already have no faith in the ability of government to rule and we will have something in common.

I agree with you concerning the savings we can make with efficiencies. However, the reality if you are to believe the scientists who have produced the data is that the savings aren't going to be some happy choice that we can make rather a necessity. The nearest to the truth that I can see is that we are going to have to reduce our consumption by a minimum of 6% pa rolling out for the forseeable future and we are going to have to do this each and every day we live on this earth.

Currently, the vast majority of people living, especially the ones in 1st world countries who are all driving this problem (of which I include myself) have their heads firmly shoved where the sun don't shine. No one wants to see the truth, and when they can, they massively do not want it to be true and hope (there's the optimist again) that the "truth must be wrong" (the flip which repeats itself over and over).
The truth however, isn't just dwindling oil and gas supplies (which would be bad enough), it isn't just reduced energy supplies (which would be bad enough), it isn't just limited growth and recession (which would be bad enough), it isn't just climate change (wooh, no comment), it isn't just politics and the pursuit of ignorance (flip, flip) - it's all of the above - and the miriad of other things that you and I don't know about.

Still, its probably time to chill out and rejoice in the fact that sometimes, ignorance is bliss.

[MacG]

A question I often find myself pondering is how different countries will react after the initial crisis, what you guy think? Who would you bet on coming out the best?

I use to think that it's impossible to predict the outcome. There are just to many variables and dependencies involved. It's like a F1 car blowing a tyre in 250 km/h - everything from a peaceful slide to a violently tumbling ball of fire hitting the spectators is possible.

When reading Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies I recognize just the pattern described by Pippa. Death by diminishing returns from complexity. Personally, I think that we passed the point of diminishing returns in the 1970's and have been on the downslope since then.

Let's face it - ALL complex societies have collapsed - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that we should be an exception. Actually, it's on those lists of famous last words: Along with "cut the blue wire" we find "It's different this time".

[snow hope]

I agree with Pippa and MacG, but would add that I think we will have to reduce our energy consumption by probably 20% or more rolling forward. Decline might only be 6% if we are lucky. It may be 8% or 12% or even more if Gharwar started to decline......

Then we have to add in the fact that it is likely that oil producing countries are bound to reduce their exports in order to safeguard their internal requirements for at least a few years - what sensible country would not do this? I have heard of a figure of 10% reduction for this reason alone.

I do agree that we can save considerable amounts of energy by conservation, economising and cutting out wasteful use of energy. But everything that we do nowadays is very complex and it only takes one link in the various supply chains to break down to potentially stop the chain working. That supply chain, at worst, could be getting water out of your tap or putting food on your table at tea-time. You only have to look at many third world examples to see how this can and does occur.

Hopefully (optomistic word) electricity will continue, realistically there seems to be plenty of people who think there is a non-negligable chance electricity in the US and the UK could become intermittant. If you look into the reasons why this may be the case, it becomes clear (to me anyway) that there is definate cause for concern. That is not something to be taken lightly (not that anybody is) imo.

When you have a family and dependants, you have to plan for the worst and hope for the best - leastways that is what I feel I have to do.

[ianryder]

Seeing nobody's agreeing with acrowe I think I'll put my tuppence worth in.

I found out about PO almost a year ago...read all the scary books and decided everything was about to fall around our ears. Absolutely convinced by it all, no possible way anything else could happen.

I've stepped out of PO a little bit of late and probably thought a bit more clearly about it all. I do think we're in for a bumpy ride but some of the predictions by people like Kunstler are probably way over reality - they're worst case scenarios and not necessarily to be taken literally. The total doom scenario is based on massive declines in production but not taking into account enough (I believe) using alternatives to soften the blows, reducing some of the stuff we don't need to use and generally people adapting.

I think basically you either think oil production is going to fall off a cliff (I no longer do) or you think it will plateau and we'll have some time to change things.

One thing acrowe mentions and which I think is a very key point in all this - people like Kunstler and other doomers always mention that it takes 20 years to do this, 20 years to do that so therefore we're doomed. I actually think this is rubbish - it doesn't take 20 years to amend some of the things we need to change to make say 10% difference. 5 years, maybe. Just look at how biofuels has gone up the agenda in a very short space of time (whether it's crap in the long run or not is another question).

Having said all that, I still think there are too many people on this planet so something else will get us some time soon but I'm just not convinced PO is going to be the end of the world some people would have us think.

[MacG]

When you have a family and dependants, you have to plan for the worst and hope for the best - leastways that is what I feel I have to do.

Absolutely! Most homeowners have extensive insurances for their houses, including fire, although we know that the probability that the house would burn down is very low. All passenger ships have lifeboats, rafts and lifejackets for all passengers, although the vast majority of those will never ever be used.

I just cant understand why we have built societies without lifeboats and insurance policys. It seems just prudent to cover spare functionality for the necessities of life in case of systemic failure.

[Andy Hunt]

I would recommend the 53-minute documentary "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" by the Power of Community.

Cuba was a 'fast crash' scenario, and its inhabitants survive on a tiny fraction of the fossil energy they used to. But they have re-built their country using sustainable techniques.

They have a lot of advantages that we don't, though - a small population and a 12-month growing season for fruit and veg.

I think we will fare far better in the UK than in places like USA, as the country's towns and infrastructure are still basically the same as when they were built - which was in a time of low energy availability. Local markets still exist, and where they do not, it will not be difficult to resurrect them.

I think we are in for big changes, but not necessarily big trouble. I think it could be very hard on the way down to the new state of equilibrium, and I think a lot of people will be very upset (and perhaps very hungry), but at the end of the day we have no choice.