At what point of depletion will it need to be before it gets

[J. R. Ewing]

As topic says.

I'm talking about a 3% year on year fall in production after we've hit permanent depletion. So what point will need to be reached before the media jump all over the 'peak oil' theory and have to start seriously discussing the situation on political shows, main news stories on news at 10 and front page news on papers that count?

Hope this makes sense

[Andy Hunt]

Just teetering on downslope now, it can all still be passed off as 'climate change, and er, the other problems'.

(Not that I'm saying AGW doesn't exist necessarily)

Give it another 3 years or so, maybe the 2012 thing, who knows, and I think it will become obvious to all exactly what we are looking at. Maybe we need these 3 or 4 years of getting into a different frame of mind to adjust, to prepare ourselves for what might be extremely challenging times, so to speak.

Hic.

(sorry, a few brandies speaking here)

[biffvernon]

When you've read the discussion following http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4179#more you'll see that nothing is simple.

[Mitch]

Oh, I'm much more doomist - towards the middle/end of next year.

[RGR]

As topic says.

I'm talking about a 3% year on year fall in production after we've hit permanent depletion.
Hope this makes sense

Not quite. What exactly is "permanent depletion"?

[UndercoverElephant]

Just teetering on downslope now, it can all still be passed off as 'climate change, and er, the other problems'.

(Not that I'm saying AGW doesn't exist necessarily)

Give it another 3 years or so, maybe the 2012 thing, who knows, and I think it will become obvious to all exactly what we are looking at. Maybe we need these 3 or 4 years of getting into a different frame of mind to adjust, to prepare ourselves for what might be extremely challenging times, so to speak.

Hic.

(sorry, a few brandies speaking here)

I think the mainstream media will be talking openly about this well before we hit the Mayan end-date in December 2012. In the UK at least we are looking at a 40% hike in the cost of peoples gas and electricity bills at the same time as all of their other costs are going up. Every recent winter there has been a debate about poor/old people having to choose between eating and heating. This winter the debate is surely going to be different because the numbers of people involved and the seriousness of their problems will be an order of magnitude greater than it was before. The people will demand answers.

[biffvernon]

But answers will be there none.


Never mind, here's a very short animation to cheer us up

http://www.videosift.com/video/Peak-Oil ... e-Woodside

[YogiEdwards]

I read a lot of articles in the process of selecting the stories to put on the news pages of this site. A year ago it was only really bloggers and alternative news sites mentioning Peak Oil. However, since oil broke $100 a barrel, the early peak theory is getting more mentions in the pages of the UK broadsheet (as was) press.

It surprises me though how many people, including some pretty well read people, still haven't heard of the concept. The number of articles dismissing it doesn't help. Some commentators seem determined to insist that there's no shortage of all and the price is due to speculation, resource nationalism...anything but concede we could be at peak.

That would be a major admission for the establishment to make - an admission with massive implications and no palatable light at the tunnel for a public who have become accustomed to living a certain way and are already getting pretty angry to find it can't continue.

Expect disinformation and manipulation of the oil issue for political and corporate ends. An open debate in the mainstream media is not guaranteed.

Oil companies are already making out that high oil prices are down to producer countries not letting the Western majors in. Expect sabre-rattling against countries supposedly hanging on to their oil, against 'Iranian-backed' terrorists for attacking oil facilities or against China for doing business with repressive regimes (as if the West wouldn't).

Remember Margaret Thatcher telling us that unions were the the problem and free market economics was the solution to our economic woes - never mind the oil price or the North Sea coming on stream.

[skeptik]

It surprises me though how many people, including some pretty well read people, still haven't heard of the concept.

It surprises me though how many people, including some pretty well read people, who have heard of the concept still manage to get it totally wrong, and end up waffling on about 'running out of oil' - a totally meaningless phrase.

I'm talking about a 3% year on year fall in production after we've hit permanent depletion.

As RGR has pointed out thats unfortunately another meaningless phrase.

All finite resources deplete from the moment you start producing them. For example, if you have 100 units of oil in a field and produce 10 in the first year, the annual depletion rate is 10%. If the depletion rate STAYS at 10% pa then you will produce 9 units in the second year - it's a measure of what you produce as a proportion of whats left in the ground.

When considering post Peak Oil, you need to talk about year on year production decline rates. In the UK sector of the North Sea from 1999 until fairly recently, where we've seen a slight leveling out, this decline rate was about 9% (? -dont quote me, off the top of my head! ) per annum - 9% less produced each year than the year before.

OK lesson over. Thought it required saying though as some people seem confused between 'depletion' and 'decline'. The two are not the same thing. There is a depletion rate even when production rate is increasing.

[Andy Hunt]

Regarding the phrase 'running out' or 'starting to run out' . . .

Although yes of course technically we have been 'running out' ever since we first started extracting the stuff, the commonly interpreted meaning of the phrase is that the long-term view is that there is less available than actually required. Up to that point, although we were technically 'running out', it did not appear to be the case because there was always an increasing supply keeping up with demand, giving the impression of an endless supply.

I think people use the phrase 'running out' to mean, 'we had better start looking for a replacement or alternative because the end is in sight'.

So I think really in common use, it isn't a meaningless term at all, if maybe technically it does not tell the whole story.

I mean you know, if you had been in a 'plane which crashed in the desert, and you had a lot of water but didn't know how long it would last, and someone said to you after 20 days, "I think we're starting to run out of water", would your reply be more likely to be, "don't be stupid, we started running out the day we crashed", or "well we'd better start thinking about distilling the fuel that's left in the 'plane"?

If you see what I mean.

[skeptik]

If you see what I mean.

Of course, but in the context of trying to make a technical case for Peak Oil, it's colloquial vagaries only serve to muddy the waters.. Best avoided.

Either we've always been running out, or we never will. Neither is helpful!

[RGR]

If you see what I mean.

Of course, but in the context of trying to make a technical case for Peak Oil, it's colloquial vagaries only serve to muddy the waters.. Best avoided.

Either we've always been running out, or we never will. Neither is helpful!

[J. R. Ewing]

meaningless phrase.

I'm talking about a 3% year on year fall in production after we've hit permanent depletion.

As RGR has pointed out thats unfortunately another meaningless phrase.

It's also annoyingly 'nit picking' when we all know what is meant by the statement

Also it's look like the 'Topic Name' was truncated, if so it should have read "At what point of depleteion does it need to be, before it gets full media coverage"

[J. R. Ewing]

If you see what I mean.

Of course, but in the context of trying to make a technical case for Peak Oil, it's colloquial vagaries only serve to muddy the waters.. Best avoided.

Either we've always been running out, or we never will. Neither is helpful!

Yes and bickering over 'trivialities' is very helpfull

[RenewableCandy]

Also it's look like the 'Topic Name' was truncated, if so it should have read "At what point of depleteion does it need to be, before it gets full media coverage"

When the lights go out at Canary Wharf (I assume that's where a lot of the papers are based). Or even Parliament...that'd get us some action (a la Thames pollution 100-odd years ago).