Global Oil Depletion | Alister Hamilton

[@bill8985]

Anyone that thinks Mars is an appropriate location for a human lifeboat... Go. Go there. Colonize. Leave us alone. I will repeat the insight of someone I learned from when I was a wee child: "Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids, In fact it's cold as hell."

[@Mike80528]

If we can't manage Earth, how the F does anyone think we have a chance in hell making life work on a *dead* world?

[@edmckay8001]

I always thought hell was 🔥🥵

[@antonyjh1234]

The attractiveness is its stability, try planning for 77 metres of sea level rise over the next 2000 years, without fossil fuels and a hothouse earth for the next ten million years, it makes mars with enough sunlight to grow plants better than what could be 10,000 years of rain here.

[@bill8985]

@@antonyjh1234 Nobody will need to plan for all that stuff that far in the future. There won't be any humans here in 2000 years. And anyone that ventures to a sterile frigid hell-scape of Mars, a planet without a magnetic field to deflect the sun's intense radiation, will probably commit suicide within a few years after living an entombed existence under ground.

[@jamesmorton7881]

Mars or Bust ! Long live Elon, King of near Space.

[@technologic21]

Makes sense that would coincide with the 1972 MIT paper on modernity's collapse by 2040. Without energy, society can't maintain the current level of sophisticated infrastructure and complexity to move around goods and services.

[@jamesmorton7881]

COR world3 is correct, Scared me back then at Univeristy and is still correct. ❤❤. (We were fracking in the 1960s in New Mexico)

[@ChrisInToon]

I that the Club Of Rome report?

[@keithparker1346]

I suspect we will see the end of globalisation within 20 years with international transport becoming too expensive

[@munaali840]

@@ChrisInToon no MIT university did a study in 1972

[@cfitzstrum]

@@ChrisInToonlimits to growth

[@aroaminggoliath3894]

I rely on this podcast for those times when my antidepressants get a little too cocky. Thanks for your work!

[@aegisfate117]

Actually, if you look at the inherent inequality in fragility of many people's social lives based on the inadequate social contract based on our technological addiction based on our over reliance on easy to consume fossil fuels, it's a good thing that our society is going to die because it did produce a lot of inequality and that was the thing it was the best at producing was inequality because it produced inequality more than it produced anything else. So with the end of the easy access of energy comes the end of the inequality producing system that we have produced. Although whatever comes next is not going to be inherently equal either because it will be based off of the inequality system that we have already established. Think of the Zuckerberg bunkers for instance

[@dermotmeuchner2416]

@@aegisfate117I bet you’re fun at parties and wakes.

[@rdallas81]

Get off those drugs. You're fooling yourself! Been there, done it. Years on meds- messed me up! Eat whole foods, fruits, veggies, water. Cut out the junk! And EXERCISE! I'm 42- partially disabled but HEALED! I thank GOD for Jesus- saved my life AND my SOUL. All REAL! You are a product and a marketing campaign and you can't even see it. A CONsumer duped by pharma and a FOR PROFIT industry. Thank GOD He opened my eyes and gave me knowledge and understanding. Lower your dose and get off those drugs. You are your own answers- Read the bible. It will save your life.

[@rdallas81]

​@@aegisfate117Love of money is the root to all evils.

[@blackwind743]

@@aegisfate117 Don't worry. The only reason we actually need the fossil fuels is to help maintain the same feudal power distribution we have today. Of course as you say we'll have to work if we want to change the dynamics of the situation as it changes. In the same way the the feudal lords use planned and expected economic booms and busts to seize more power, just look at the fossil fuel bust as an opportunity and not just the bloody mess that it's probably going to be.

[@ShastaTodd]

The Limits to Growth are in our face now.

[@bobdeverell]

Utter rubbish. Mankind has only just begun its journey, Yes there will be bumps in the short term, particularly in the defeated West, but mankind will grow to ultimately conquer the universe.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Limits to Growth didn't take into account the energy costs of fuel extraction, it simply assumed it could be ignored, which was true when the model was created. The co-creator of the Limits to Growth model stated, once the model showed decline, a qualitative change would have occurred, invalidating the model. (The Limits to Growth model was purely numeric.) Once energy extraction become greater than the energy retrieved, a collapse would occur much faster than Limits to Growth predicted. Every attempt at extracting more energy will simply make everything worse. The only chance is a massive adoption of nuclear power to maintain the flow of usable energy.

[@ShastaTodd]

@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism only digs the hole deeper.

[@ShastaTodd]

@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism only digs the hole deeper.

[@ShastaTodd]

@@michaeledwards2251 technocornucopianism solves nothing and only digs the unsustainable, overshoot hole deeper.

[@ExtinctionLife]

Nate Hagens has been focusing on this too, although the time frame discussed here is much shorter than what I have gathered from Nate's channel. Perhaps I'm mistaken. But regardless, the cost of extraction is going to climb with time until it becomes a net energy loss. Of course the climate-denying conservative base will lose their collective minds as oil prices climb until reality finally sinks into their thick skulls.

[@robertpedersen6831]

I don't think oil prices will rice. The economy will fall in line with oil depletion. keeping oilprce fluctuating

[@DanA-nl5uo]

I have been following Simon Michaux after his interviews with Nate Hagens. Simon and Art Burman seem to be much more convinced we are closer to the end of oil than Nate Hagens. I like Nate and have watched just about everyone of his podcasts more than once but I think he is overwhelmed and in denial of how bad the situation really is with both how little oil is left and how much damage we have already done to the biosphere. I think Nate is slightly stuck in a late 1990s world view of having time to adress the crisis. Meaning that I think Nate believes or wants to believe we can keep the status quo lifestyle or close to it. Just maybe not waste energy on things like driving further to work. The reality is we are far beyond that.

[@DanA-nl5uo]

​@@robertpedersen6831yes Art Burman iirc explained the reality that governments will subsidies or pump from the government reserves to keep the oil price from going too high because they cannot afford to have the economy fail. It isn't a true supply and demand market. You can see how hard the governments in Europe have fought to help control cost for the economy with the loss of the pipelines from Russia to Germany. Or how much the usa pumped out of our reserve the Biden administration has pumped out about half of the oil reserve and hasn't replaced it.

[@Lurkerbot]

@@DanA-nl5uo I also watch Nate's shows and listen to the podcast and I don't think he's as rosy-goggled as you say. His show is called "The Great Simplification" for a reason and it's because he thinks that complex society as it exists right now is coming to an end soon. I do agree that his timeline is a little further out than some others think, but that seems up for debate depending on who else you listen to. My own expectation is for oil to get very expensive within the next decade or so.

[@DanA-nl5uo]

​@@Lurkerbot Nate has said we will be burning oil in 2070. It was on some of his early podcasts. I would say that is beyond optimistic for the oil industry. But Nate saids he wants to build a network of people choosing to live a lower energy lifestyle to be examples for that distant day when society is forced to make that choice but that be believes it is inevitable that we delay that as long as possible and keep living the ff dream. I view that as a very last century mindset. I am only a few years younger than Nate and I think he underestimates how different the world view is of people a couple decades younger than him.

[@SteffiReitsch]

Humanity's been guzzling on the stuff like it's inexhaustible. Hundred of millions cruising around in heavy steel vehicles. Gasoline is cheaper than soda pop! Imagine that. And just a gallon of this energy- rich miraculous stuff has the energy to push a 6,000 lb SUV 16 to 20 miles. OMG. Save some for future generations? Fuggettaboutit!

[@michaeledwards2251]

Ford F-140 SUV with conventional engines gives 20 mpg, with Achates opposed piston engines, 40 mpg. (Autoline) Even then most of the energy is wasted. Even without reducing the size of modern SUV and cars, fuel consumption could be cut to 1/3 or less, using better engines and KE recovery : currently only used in Formula 1.

[@SteffiReitsch]

@@michaeledwards2251 Yeah, yeah. Look pops, there's no way a big ass heavy SUV is going to get 40mpg. Manufacturers have been trying to squeeze as much mileage out of a gallon for years. Any improvement will only be marginal. Now go back to sleep.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@SteffiReitsch Just look up Achates Diesel on Google. Autoline had a program on Ford F-140 getting 40 mpg. The only reason low mpg SUV exist is because the engine is cheaper giving more profit.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@SteffiReitsch Kindly wake up and look up Autoline & Achates. Its been done, and demonstrated to the satisfaction of Autoline, the US car TV program. Typical petrol engines in a urban environment are no more than 11% efficient. Achates engines score on 2 fronts, higher top efficiency and maintaining efficiency over a wider speed range than conventional engines.

[@brooksschneider3441]

When I see the reaction of many people, including policy-makers, to statements about oil depletion, I can't help drawing a parallel to the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Your arm's cut off." "No, it isn't." 🤔

[@gunnarkaestle]

One nice model example for depletion is the Cantarell oil field, an aging super-giant. It was once the 2nd largest oil producing field and is now by a factor of 10 smaller than during its maximum production. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantarell_Field#Production_history

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@bubbajones6907]

These Peak Oil gurus were popular with the boomers. They're the same people behind the alien UFO cults. Many Hollywood productions are based on both. It makes no sense that the Earth could be running out of oil as we've only consumed a tiny amount of oil so far.

[@erdelegy]

It's just a flesh wound.

[@henridupascal2184]

Fuck around (20th century) and find out ! (21th century) xD

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@didforlove]

@@jenspi4725 no such thing as infinite growth

[@martythemartian99]

@@jenspi4725 That's like claiming you are immortal because you have not died yet.🤣

[@emafink3018]

xDDD

[@stevealdrich2472]

If Sterling engines were any kind of solution the Italians, Japanese, Swedish, Koreans, Germans, Austrians Australians or Indians could have figured it out. All the countries that rely on oil imports had plenty of reason to develop oil alternatives for decades. This goes for the US too. People at M.I.T. have known about Sterling engines for as long as there has been an M.I.T.

[@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220]

They still abide by Carnot efficiency rules, no doubt... work done scales to temp differential.... the holy decree , number 2...

[@michaeledwards2251]

The US army did figure it out : they had a prototype small truck driven by a Stirling engine. It proved more efficient than equivalent internal combustion engines. The neat thing about a Stirling engine, is the ability to use virtually any heat source. The increased efficiency wasn't needed, due to the ease of manufacture of conventional designs. To understand how far this goes, Google Taurozzi engine. (Another design with improved efficiency ) The design has been verified by its use for medical oxygen pumps, and any gas pump demanding absolute purity.

[@JonathanMaddox]

Indeed. A Stirling engine is a heat engine like any other. It must be supplied with a heat differential from somewhere, typically by burning stuff. It has absolutely no advantage over electric motors, which can run from wind, solar and hydro electricity that was *not* generated thermally. At the large scale it has no advantage over other external-combustion engines like steam turbines. At the small scale its only advantage over internal-combustion engines is that it can run from dirtier fuel. It does work nicely for small-scale solar thermal electricity generation, and it did once look like it might compete with solar PV, but in the last 15 years PV has dramatically reduced its costs while solar thermal has been left in the dust. Recovery of mechanical or electric power from thermal storage is an interesting role in which Stirling engines may one day shine. They're technically reversible so they can serve as a heat pump, *creating* a temperature differential in addition to being able to recover work from one, but it is doubtful that something as simple as a Stirling engine will have an advantage over existing thermal energy storage developments which tend to use either established heat pump machinery from the industrial gas industry, or more specialised equipment, such as the "isentropic" heat pump designed by the former company of that name (the tech and some of the team now belonging to the Sir Joseph Swan Centre for Energy Research at Newcastle University). One role in which Stirling engines might be the best possible technology is in radioisotope generators for spacecraft, where they can achieve higher thermal efficiency than the solid-state Seebeck generators which have traditionally been used in this role, without the complexity of a more sophisticated engine design which might have a greater risk of breakdown or need for maintenance, which you can't do on an uncrewed spacecraft and would be unatractive to do with irradiated components even on a crewed one. Stirling engines are a niche technology and while they might find additional niches with the depletion of fossil oil and gas, the likelihood that they will ever assume a major role in terrestrial energy supply is small.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@rdallas81]

No sterling engine will move a car.. Energy in/ work out.... A sterling engine to drive a car requires energy. It would have to be an engine with small wheels and a seat only.

[@h.e.hazelhorst9838]

I just read the book ‘How everything can collapse’ by Pablo Servigne and an important part of it describes just this. A must read. He also makes a distinction between ‘limits’ and ‘boundaries’, by comparing our society with a car driving on a road. A limit is the amount of fuel in the tank. No more fuel and the car comes to a stop. A boundary is the road the car is driving on: if you leave the road, you will end up somewhere in the field, under unpredictable circumstances. The climate and CO2 we pump into the atmosphere are the boundaries we’ve crossed and we’re moving into unknown territory and towards a concrete wall at the same time. This seems to be somewhat of a contradiction, but it is not. We do not yet know when the wall will show up and what will come first: the wheels will break down or the fuel runs out.

[@effexon]

aint oil running out put wall if humans cannot do it themselves. So 2 problems solved in one go. Economic viability should make digging oil out of ground not feasible quickly if more energy is needed than received.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@antpoo]

Having run out of firm many times in a car and especially truck, I can assure you , life without oil will be painfully hard work.

[@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z]

#478T CO2 is not driving the 'climate' and proof is the lPCC internationally-accepted AGW is +1.8°C BY 2100 or +0.023°C per year. Within a normal daily range of +/- 15°C it represents only a +0.15%. Applied to your 3m wide roadway 'boundary concept, *that's 5mm drift.* Oooo! We can handle that. You Doomers suck at math and science. Stick to anime.

[@jrgengrelllykken1083]

Where can we find the report he has written about this? The link in description does not help

[@LorenSoman]

Fantastic! I've been waiting for a long time to hear someone talk about this. He is talking about B.W. HILL and his ETP MODEL. I saw this oil depletion model about 10 years ago and I even spoke to B.W. about it on line and via phone. This approach, which analyzes the rising entropy of the world oil production system, is the only way to understand and predict the course of oil depletion. The declining energy return of world oil production has already slowed worldwide economic growth to the point that population growth rates are beginning to fall. This hidden energy crisis is very severe and it is the reason for the current world wide surge in fascism. I've been saying for almost 20 years that this energy crisis is not a solvable problem. Modern industrial civilization is on the verge of total collapse.

[@LorenSoman]

The ETP model is brilliant. It is actually just a statement of the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to world oil production. B.W. Hill had to estimate factors such as average well depth to understand reservoir temperature. This guy is using actual data, so his model should be even more accurate.

[@LorenSoman]

Thinking of this as a problem where eventually oil production must and will stop when the energy return is 1:1, is not exactly right. Long before that theoretical point can be reached, the world economy just will get weaker and weaker, leading to collapse.

[@LorenSoman]

The world economy runs on the net energy available from oil. When that net energy falls, so does the economy.

[@LorenSoman]

The world economy runs on the total available net energy from all sources, including oil. But oil is the best bang for the buck. Oil energy subsidizes the growth in capacity of all other energy sources. Once the net energy available from oil begins to fall, so does the total net energy available from all sources. In other words, so called alternative energy can never replace oil. This has always been predicably true, but humans just keep trying anyway.

[@genemarner]

There is no way to "ramp up" any energy system without fossil fuels. What is needed is to RAMP DOWN, DOWN, DOWN energy demand.

[@solutionrecruiter7130]

we sgould consider the benefits of the nafive american way of life... the amish... and centuries old living while preserving and maintaining access to this new technology

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@jirislavicek9954]

​@@solutionrecruiter7130That's not possible with world population of 8 billion. You very soon reach other limits. Lack of firewood, grazing land, agricultural land...

[@beavischrist5]

Theres still plenty oil everywhere. For hundreds of years. And fossil is a scam. Empty oilwells are filled again after 60 years. No death plant matter or death dinosaur carcasses involved😅

[@nickwinn7812]

I disagree strongly. Renewables and nuclear are already a significant part of global energy production. They are already ramping themselves up and this will accelerate as they become a greater part of the energy make-up. How did the energy system get ramped up in the first place? Fossil fuels did it to themselves so to speak. Ramping down demand would be a very good thing, because it is resource depletion that is the biggest issue facing us after climate change. We are heading to be short of everything, but we are currently focussed solely on energy. Everyone driving electric cars instead of ICE cars will simply bring scarcity of everything at the same rate for example.

[@generic_youtube_comment]

Just to draw a distinction between 'depletion' and 'decline'. At around 7 minutes 30, the host refers to 'depletion' when maximum rate of extraction is reached, this is not so and should be accurately referred to as 'decline'. Any finite resource is subject to depletion if it is drawn upon at any stage of extraction, 'decline' is observed when that maximum rate is passed.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@markTheWoodlands]

Very good catch.

[@geosamways]

Petroleum Geologist here . . . . . I don't think fraccing uses explosives! It involves increasing the fluid pressure in the borehole until it exceeds the strength of the rock, which fractures, making it easier for the oil to get out of the rock. WRT, another way to think of Peak Oil is the point in time at which we are using oil faster than we are finding it. We have oil reserves, which are the estimated volume we believe is still in the ground. When we make a discovery, we add to the reserves. When we produce the oil and use it, we are reduing the reserves.

[@Ln-cq8zu]

Thank you 👍🌅

[@emafink3018]

It doesn't matter how many new oil deposits are found if the costs of extraction exceed the benefits. That's what this is all about. Your approach is one of those designed to confuse people and used by the industry to deceive them. You've parroted it very well.

[@emafink3018]

This is additional interesting Arthur Berman: "Peak Oil - The Hedonic Adjustment" | kzbin.info/www/bejne/eXWle5eHo894aNE

[@Austin1990]

Society runs on energy. Money is merely the medium of exchanging energy. Peak oil caused the 2008 global financial crisis because the global energy consumption plateaued in a world built to require continual growth. We will see continual financial collapse as the underlying commodity of society, dwindles. The collapse will be blamed on all kinds of things: risky bets, Central Banks, politics, etc. But, the real truth is that the life blood of society is running dry. I didn't realize the oil would run out so soon, but I also didn't account for the point of running out being when the energy ROI hits 0. The thing is that energy subsidizing will hide the source of the issue for quite a while. Some people may never realize what causes the problem

[@WJV9]

I think speculation in mortgage securities which were AAA Rated even though they were in fact 'junk bond' status due to no money down, Ninja loans. No Income, No Job, Assets. Peak oil began hitting us in the late 1970's into 1980's when we had long lines at gas stations, odd/even license plate fillups, and the Middle East countries formed OPEC to quadruple oil prices in a couple of years. Jimmy Carter helped break OPEC, even though he gets no credit, due to efficiency standards for cars, appliances, homes, furnaces, hot water heaters, etc. Of course Fracking has made USA the biggest oil producer right now, but it costs money to frack and is not efficient if oil is less than $100 a barrel. There is a lot of gov't subsidy for fracking that helps keep gasoline prices down but at some point the old wells will run dry again and once fracked we have no other tricks to boost production.

[@warriorofice33]

What fool can we be to think growth can be exponential. Our planet is finite with limited amount of resources.

[@dan2304]

Unfortunately economists do not understand that there are limits to both the financial and energy costs of commodities. Due to the infrastructure and machinery needed, which have their own embedded energy, needed to put energy to work. The cost of energy has limits, once the cost of energy approaches 10% of the value of the work it will do the venture becomes uneconomic. Global conventional oil production peaked in 2005 as predicted in the 1960s and total global production has declined from 2018. The conflict in Russia will eventually take Russian oil off the market. Energy production industries need to produce a minimum of 10 times more energy than the energy input just to break even. Not just fossil fuels but most commodities production is declining due to depleting reserves. The geology of commodities has been well understood for 70 years. Few reserves are left to be found.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Use of nuclear power will solve the energy supply problem. The moon is great place to extract metals : dig 1000 miles, 1600 km, deep to reach the metal core. Send the refined metal to earth.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The metal reserves on the earth are mainly asteroid strikes. The moon has a metal core millions of times greater than all the earth's surface metal reserves. The deep core cannot be used, due to heat.

[@dan2304]

@@michaeledwards2251 Obviously you have no concept of the scale of the issues or the energy and materials required, or where they are going to come from. Humanity has all but exhausted the energy and materials needed for modern society. The future is one of economic, social, and population decline. While some countries have more resources than others the global and eventual trend is depopulation. Humanity will be lucky to survive into next century and it will be more difficult next century.

[@praisane]

@@dan2304 you have to remember that many raw materials that are mined are infinitely recyclable. I'm pretty sure just the landfills of the previous few generations contain enough metals to keep a reduced mankind going for a long time, not to mention the current worldwide infrastructure that will become grossly overkill when the human population drops into a billion or two. Energy is an issue, but nuclear combined with renewables should be enough. Fertilizers for food production may become an issue though, but at least a reduced population requires far less food.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@dan2304 All the more reason to act immediately. Nuclear is the only viable power source left, with a EROI of 200 to 1. While we have surplus energy, we have to act. Remember it will take decades, probably 5 to 6, to transition away from fossil fuels. To keep the global system running at all, will require fossil fuels for the next 2 generations. A temporary crunch will be the result. The difficulty will be recovering quick enough to extract the CO2 atmosphere burden. Without a quick recovery, earth will transition into a hot house earth. A hot house earth is the greatest threat : a transition as great as the end of the last ice age in sea level, temperatures, and living areas.

[@QAlba1074]

It floors me that in America how much petroleum is used for plastic shopping bags/plastic packaging alone! 30+ years of hyperconsumerism has poisoned the soil with bits and bits of plastic, I see it every day and try to clean it up, but it keeps coming back because of wind. It seems like a lost cause only until we stop producing all this excess plastic.

[@DanA-nl5uo]

Art Burman does a good job of explaining how the ff industry has pushed plastics because the shale oil is really high to methane and other gas that doesn't form into gasoline or diesel fuel so the plastic is a byproduct of trying to get enough gasoline and diesel

[@juskahusk2247]

You really want to eat an apple that has just been fondled by someone who never washes their hands?

[@DanA-nl5uo]

​@@juskahusk2247you think that changes when you pick the apple off the counter and put it in a plastic bag at the grocery store?

[@juskahusk2247]

@@DanA-nl5uo No. I'm saying it's safer to choose a plastic bag of apples.

[@avibortnick]

@@juskahusk2247 I don't recall grimy hands on apples were in any way a problem prior to widespread 1-time-use plastics.

[@mpetry912]

energy return on investment (EROI) is an important concept that most people do not understand

[@effexon]

arent we already in number 1:1 in many places? we could soon be in situation nuclear or wind energy is subsidizing digging oil out of ground, with getting less back. Though renewables equipment has also at times 10 or only 1. Which places have highest EROEI (saudi-arabia?) with high reserves? Coz those are key places, both high volume and high availability now but how fast that changes...

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@davidminer84]

You'd think these alarmists would've learned by now.... they've never been right ever. I remember when I was nine talking to my mother about the 1973 Energy Crisis that was nothing more than a tool government used to raise the cost of fuel by claiming the supply was depleted. After the oil companies had sufficiently raised prices they slowly ramped up production because they were making another 70% on a gallon of fuel. Yes, it seemed like over night the, "Energy Crisis" that was going to have us all walking and riding bikes was over without an explanation. Yes, there's enough oil for hundreds of years and if you're really worried about it they have been producing synthetic fuel for nearly a hundred years... remember during WWll... the Germans were forced to rely on synthetic fuel because of the fact that they'd been cut off from North African oil, the oil wells to the north in places like Norway and naturally nothing was coming from The Soviet Union. Yes, we've been lied to by the governments of this world ever since there's been governments and this guy is either a shill or a moron.

[@buddysnackit1758]

EROI is dumb. You want us to believe that drilling is as expensive than that of the oil extracted? That is what a ratio of 1 means. That ratio is simply not possible and all that will happen is that price will increase. Since everything (And I mean everything.) is based on the cost of a barrel of oil it will just be inflation. We'll always be able to drill because your stupid study does not factor in the 10 million dollars invested will yield 1 billion future dollars. Since you are the start of the inflationary cycle you always use your money before it devalues. This is something that almost nobody realizes.

[@davidminer84]

@@buddysnackit1758 for the left, the devil isn't even in the details... it's in the simple facts. None of their efforts to, "save the environment" have ever worked; all that results is more damage to the environment coupled with a financial disaster and tyrannical government policies. ....name one leftist idea that makes sense even on the surface let alone that actually worked...

[@flickwtchr]

KZbin algorithm sent me. Great content!

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@SirBossberger]

This curated content. Algorithm did nothing. Ask the human hand.

[@OldScientist]

What wonderfully poor analogies contained in this video! And who needs facts? The known reserves of fossil fuels continue to increase eventhough the demand has expanded dramatically. In 1980 there were 30 years of oil left (so it ran out in 2010!). In 2020 there were 57 years of oil left. The Earth is awash with hydrocarbons, as the fracking revolution has demonstrated in the US. To put it another way, the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the Oil Age won't end because we ran out of oil.

[@jamesmorton7881]

The oil stays in the ground when it takes one barrel to recover a new one.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

19:23 19:29 No reason to stop producing oil at sub-unity EROI. It isn't valued for its energy content.

[@davidbarry6900]

Incorrect. Oil is easily transportable, so it is economical to extract if the energy required can be provided with "free" energy like co-located natural gas/methane, that would be uneconomical to transport (gas is a pain to pipe or condense for transportation). So there are SOME places where the remaining oil will still be extracted (and later refined/used elsewhere), depending on the geology etc., even if it takes more than the equivalent energy to extract. You are correct though that it won't be extracted if the energy required exceeds output AND has to be provided from elsewhere.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Even if no fossil fuel source is available, nuclear will be used to extract oil/bitumen. For example the Tar Sands of Canada. I expect the entire Tar Sands to be extracted. Any water supply problem will be overcome by pumping in sea water from the Pacific.

[@hungrylion8703]

@@michaeledwards2251 all i hear is this nuclear bullshit from illiterate morons like yourself. you don't even know if they work as advertised. the whole thing could be a scam

[@effexon]

@@davidbarry6900 this applies to green energy conversion to similar transportable different forms. there will always be need to pay almost anything for that kind of benefit. oil has just penetrated transportation everywhere so it is hard to replace and hard to even imagine what EROI below 1 means.

[@cameronveale7768]

Only oil basins with growing reserves are US and Canada and canada is pretty much at the limit now as is the US. It appears US shale the companies are reaching new highs of production but is being done by using larger 'straw's to get more out now, so how long shale oil grows is up in the air. Of the 12.9 million oil produced per day in the US, a quarter of that for the past couple of years have been NAT gas liquid products not oil We're in for a world of hurt soon

[@kated3165]

Oil companies def seem desperately running around, pressuring world leaders into allowing them to siphon all and any oil reserves they can manage to get their greedy claws on. Large militaries, like that of the US, entirely depend on fossil fuels... fun times!

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@BananaBananaBanana-y3k]

so are we saying that the 1.56 trillion barrels of global reserve oil is subject to roughly 70% attritional loss during extraction, meaning the actual extractable reserve is only 468 billion barrels, when annual consumption is 37 billion barrels per year and rising, meaning actual oil expiry in under 13 years. and this guy is saying that as that reserve reduces, the extraction becomes more and more inefficient, so we're talking a lot less than 13 years. that's no flights, no new plastics, no non-electric cars within a decade... this is global economic collapse, surely?

[@michaeledwards2251]

Its always been known only 1/3 of the oil in a reserve can be extracted without external energy input. Every extra 1% needs more and more energy to extract. To get oil out of a reserve demands the reserve internal pressure is greater than the pressure from the height of oil from the reserve to the surface.

[@ouimetco]

Yes. See Nate hagens “the gear simplification” series.

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@michaeledwards2251 There is the "oil in place" and the reserves, which is roughly a 1/3 of the first number and which can be extracted. Most of the oil will stick to the porous stone of the reservoir. Enhanced oil recovery (CO2 injection, steam injection, chemicals, etc.) have increase the production rates, but were unable to increase the recovery factors increasingly.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@gunnarkaestle The oil fields will be fracked : once the easy to release oil is extracted, they fall into the tight oil category.

[@Peace2051]

I'm reminded of an old adage regarding famines, "Soldiers eat first." Even if the hydrocarbon institutions would require even larger subsidies than they are already getting (making them now and in the future mercenaries of national governments), today's militaries run on diesel and jet fuel. Instead of a crash program to half our energy use globally, which would be a good start, the world will most likely continue to divert precious resources to keep and expand military operations in a crumbling world.

[@mrbroccoli7395]

The strong survive and inherit the earth.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@lakecrab]

That is pretty much the picture right here and now.

[@Peace2051]

@@mrbroccoli7395 Said the person or bot that has never posted or Liked a video in the 10 years of the existence of your channel, so probably a paid hack to spread misinformation. But what you say may be true because Nature is indifferent to our views: gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

[@juliejeavons6949]

My colleague at Stantec, Dr Stephen Palmer has been working on this for a while. There’s also the Jevons Paradox to consider; renewables won’t replace fossil fuel, they will supplement it and energy demand will increase as a result. My concern with carbon calculations is that decarbonisation of the grid is taken as a carbon reduction credit, so options with a high power use look more attractive than they are; particularly if the grid is not decarbonised. Maybe net zero policies need to be shifted towards net energy positive.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Only nuclear will be net energy positive : all other sources will need an energy subsidy.

[@juliejeavons6949]

@@michaeledwards2251 does that include decommissioning and waste management?

[@effexon]

@@michaeledwards2251 hows digging nuclear uranium out of ground and long enriching process.... I dont say that cant be done, it just may need more effort to do.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@kenvrinten3450]

​@@michaeledwards2251and only China can build them at a reasonably fast rate..less than 5 years from inception to commissionong. And thats still just a drop in the bucket.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

16:51 16:56 *_"API gravity_* is a commonly used index of the density of a crude oil or refined products. *_API stands for the American Petroleum Institute,_* which is the industry organization that created this measure. A crude oil will typically have an API between 15 and 45 degrees. Higher API indicates a lighter (lower density) crude."

[@kenvrinten3450]

Bitumen in CAnada and Venezuela can have an API as low as 8 to 14

[@PWALPOCO]

I guess an issue is that when you are paying money to do the work of extracting oil it's not so clear if the overall process has a positive energy gain at the end. Early oil fields in the middle east had so much oil the stuff was bubbling to the surface. They could use just a bucket to get it. Now you need to inject water, under high pressure into the ground to force it out through an oil well. If the market is undervaluing the price of oil and energy then it's quite possible that paying money rather than knowing the energy cost of the oil extraction process that you are using more energy than you are getting out.

[@genericsomething]

I remember fracking in the D/FW area. The denial of the cause of the earthquakes was funny, in my anti-social mind. I don't live there anymore, and I wont spend more than a few days there.

[@Morgan313]

They stopped fracking in the area when DFW Airport said the earthquakes were damaging the runways. A lot of people have moved here since then, though.

[@genericsomething]

@@Morgan313 I have no love for DF/W airport, because I grew up in Highland Village, directly in the flight path of the north/south runways. But, I commend them on stopping the fracking. The last time I was there, I was shocked by how much development there is north of Ft. Worth. All of that beautiful prairie has been developed into more suburban hell.

[@Morgan313]

@@genericsomething DFW was the fastest-growing metro area in the USA in 2023.

[@genericsomething]

@@Morgan313 I only need to go back there one more time, whenever my mother-in-law finally leaves this mortal coil. I'm not looking forward to it.

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@genericsomething Dallas/Fort Worth is on top of the Barnett Shale, which is a gas producing play, not so much oil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale

[@fr57ujf]

In a way, this can be seen as good news because it limits the amount of global warming and environmental damage we would otherwise inflict on the planet. In a world of competitive nation-states, voluntary degrowth will never happen. It will be forced either by the depletion of fossil fuels or the expense of dealing with the consequences of our overuse of resources.

[@Cyberpunk_Radio_PBS]

No it really doesn't limit emissions if the status quo continues we will just switch back to coal.. and we have a LOT of coal.

[@chookbuffy]

Nate Hagens reckons that AI will greatly assist the efficiency of extraction wells that could mean the ROI stays a little higher for longer :(

[@michaeledwards2251]

It will make the global warming problem worse : the loss of aerosols, there are still considerable aerosols in the atmosphere, will drive up global temperatures above 2 C above the 1850 base line. With reduced power, the ability to prevent a transition to a hot house earth will be greatly reduced. Natural methane production has already increased due to melting of the tundra (permafrost), and tropical temperature increases. The immediate effects of global methane production are still much less than fossil fuels, but long run, should still be sufficient to make the earth transition to a hot house earth.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@danboyd6609]

I'm not sure where he's getting his data from, but for any well (oil or gas) the amount of energy required to drill, complete (frac), transport, refine, transport, and distribute is MUCH smaller than the amount of energy released with its consumption. The Btu content of the hydrocarbons produced has not changed through time and the unconventional (fraced) reservoirs are no deeper than any other reservoir that's being produced. I can appreciate the need to pander, but this whole presentation is shot through with mis-information.

[@MrPaddy924]

Fascinating and troubling in equal measure and Alister seems to be mirroring the views of Art Berman, Nate Hagens, Simon Michaux and others who are trying to raise the alarm. I have no faith that our political classes will act with due urgency though.

[@keypoint1293]

He can only mirror he is not qualified in geology, I have no idea why an electrical engineer is involved in this beyond a hobby.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@keypoint1293 He added thermodynamic modelling. Whenever a new factor is added, the difficulties of the current situation become more apparent.

[@markkelly4804]

The 2P analysis by Rystad Energy shows that at current production rates - 100m barrels a day - we have between 8 and 20 years of oil left.

[@michaels4255]

Of course, that assumes we can keep producing 100M barrels per day until it is effectively gone, but that will not be possible.

[@markkelly4804]

@@michaels4255 Yeah. Theres also the above ground issues - war, societal breakdown, financial collapse - which will limit extraction further.

[@michaeledwards2251]

I view fossil fuels will be kept going for another generation. Not long at all. The trillion tons of hydrogen reserves will be used up in a generation. Methane Clathrates will also be mined, the Japanese have demonstrated they can be used. The effective rate of fossil fuel consumption will keep increasing. Nuclear power will be used to extract the last 2/3 of the oil and gas reserves.

[@markkelly4804]

​@@michaeledwards2251 At current rates of 100m barrels a day, reserves last about 16 years. That analysis comes from John Peach. Peak discoveries was 1965 and peak reserves was 1985. This assumes that the worlds biggest reserves - Venezuela - wont be extractable as its currently negative EROI.

[@effexon]

@@michaeledwards2251 what does this mean for oil price? to me below 100$ per barrel now is weird considering it was 140$ over 10 years ago and inflation is a thing. Decline in supply should mean creep up of price and OPEC countries with diminishing oil reserves would logically want that too.... though some reserves last some 100 years but get more expensive to dig out over time. Just world population still going up means more demand for oil and energy in general. So far in 2020s electric price has gone a lot while oil/gasoline didnt, suggesting other electric production is subsidizing oil, more valuable forms of energy by prioritazion, as oil based fuels are still used in critical functions of society and electric production starts to have more and more options. That is still unknown how sustainable those systems are (batteries for grid balance) as replacing whole equipment every 10 years would largely negate benefits.

[@mikecawthorn7806]

1 Supply and demand. Less easy oil price goes up. 2 There's hundreds of years of coal in the ground. You can make oil from coal. It's not done now because we use the easy to get oil. The biggest oil reserves are in Nicuagua, but our refiners are set up to process sweet light.

[@dipladonic]

Politics and geopolitics determine our access to hydrocarbons, not geology. There are huge reserves of oil out there that our political class don't allow access to.

[@ignaciofernandezclavel3535]

2 Bullshit. We do not make oil from coal because is not energy profitable: yo dou not generate an energy surplus. You will be wasting coal.

[@krisamagus1]

@@dipladonic keep on dreaming

[@richardv.2475]

I think every at least semi-decent engineer inevitably ends up as a prepper weirdo around the age of 50 with the only hobby of building a doomsday shelter unless he has the nerves of steel and is able to accept the fate cheerfully. I mean thermodynamics in general teaches us that this won't end well, we cannot win, it cannot be a draw, we cannot negotiate the rules. They never tell this to you directly, but it's 100% this won't end well, this can't end well. We could slow down and enjoy the existence for a couple millenias and rot away in a rather slow fashion, but the fate is inevitably coded into the system.

[@DavidRose-m8s]

A suitable proportion of MP's should have engineering degrees to provide this institutional knowledge in parliament. What we have is a dearth of experience with bankers, lawyers, and the like. Not makers.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@guapochino140]

There are millions of engineers around the world who believe in myths and fantasy regarding our energy future. It has nothing to do with profession. You can say the same for farmers or economists. Some get it, most don't, often because their jobs depend on them not getting it.

[@KateFrancis-eo2rp]

YES!

[@jamesmorton7881]

All wars have been over resources, yes?

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Hamas has zero concern about resources.

[@VulcanLogic]

@@aliendroneservices6621 All religious wars are fought over who gets to control the resources.

[@jamesmorton7881]

Food. Required.

[@praisane]

Ukraine? Afganistan? Vietnam? That's all ideology.

[@effexon]

@@praisane I suspect there is always resource thing there but that reminds people oil running out and that (panic mood) is not wanted, so it is often very hushhush in mainstream media.

[@yaesyapanama353]

It´s all happening according to schedule ... which is the UN report on the restraints to the energy transition that calls for degrowth, Rachel? Thank you

[@jamesmorton7881]

There will always be more people, there will NEVER be more oil. World_3 model BAU projected our exact situation. Our Civilization is peaking NOW. And. Going gown. We have had the road map for 50+ years . . . . Still Business As. Usual. ❤❤

[@keithparker1346]

I suspect we will see a population fall

[@mateusz5318]

How do you know? Maybe earth producing it all the time 50km deep

[@ericpatterson8432]

Earth might as well be Easter Island.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Its worse, the people of Easter Island understood what was happening. How many understand our footprint is 1.7, practically double, the sustainable level ?

[@catherinepohlman6957]

Hi, I'd love to read the report Alister is talking about. May I please ask if you could post a link to the report? The link supplied doesn't have the details on where to find it. Thanks!

[@DrawThatFox-rq5sx]

Thank you for bringing the issue to the spotlight, we don't talk enough about the our current energy predicament.

[@barrycarter8276]

You’re right we don’t talk about it enough, but some people do. If your not squeamish, and don’t dwell on bad things happening, view: Canadian Association for the Club of Rome “Jack Alpert -- Civilizations “Running Out of Gas” Story”🤔

[@DrawThatFox-rq5sx]

@@barrycarter8276 Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out 👍

[@DrawThatFox-rq5sx]

@@barrycarter8276 Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out 👍

[@zapfanzapfan]

What was the significance of the temperature?

[@t.a6159]

we have been dreading oil depletoon for a century..

[@krisamagus1]

okey,nothing to see here, move on. LOL

[@bearclaw5115]

Global oil production has not peaked yet and certainly has gone up from the 2006-2008 period Hamilton cites as the peak of oil production. Oil production has increased 18% from 2006 to 2022. Not sure how he came up with that. I also have doubts about other things he has claimed. The U.K. produced 38,000,000 tons of oil in 2022 and another 38,000,000 cubic meters of gas largely from the North Sea. It's hard to believe the industry there is energy net negative. I don't doubt the overall trends he has laid out just the timing.

[@klondike444]

2005 - peak CONVENTIONAL oil!! It's generally agreed.

[@GrinchDec23]

​@@klondike444 By whom ?? Funny how literally everything reported as such turns out to be a massive purposeful lie.

[@matthewdolan5831]

Thanks. I would add in 2 further dynamics arising from accelerating global heating - Abrupt disappearances and disruptions to supply due to human health temperature criticals being breached in production areas and political chaos, state breakdowns, rises in piracy and so on. Note that this is already starting. Abrupt disappearances and disruptions to demand for the same reasons as above, complicated by currency lability and money failure.

[@michaeledwards2251]

An additional one is due to plants being affected by night time temperatures higher than day. This is known to stop plant growth. (I forget the exact term, but it is a method used in green houses to control plant growth. ) Crop failures for no apparent reason are expected as the night time temperatures have been rising faster than the day. Crop failures due to excess heat are occurring already.

[@hansschonig2472]

why does the temperature of the reservoir matter? can anybody enlighten me?

[@antpoo]

Viscosity. Like warm and cold honey.

[@damoeb]

Public transport is not cheaper or more efficient in general, just in crowded places and not on the country. This is a symptom of our inability to "degrow". We want to keep all the luxery, just green wash it a bit.

[@michaeledwards2251]

Trams can use electricity with an overall energy efficiency of 25%, 3 to 4 times better than cars. Also trams can be driven by nuclear power.

[@munyansebastien7127]

What do you mean? Trains and buses are way more efficient than cars, even in the countryside.

[@damoeb]

@@munyansebastien7127 Not in general. For public transport you need a certain base rate to operate in order to be useful. And every vehicle needs an operator. This is without any passengers. For cars you don't have that. So, for public transport there is a min passenger per ride to be efficient. If you only had one passenger all the time, the costs to operate a much larger vehicle that requires an operator on top is obviously less efficient.

[@JohnnyBelgium]

​@damoeb If your hypothetical single passenger is a different passenger every time, then you are sparing the production of a great number of cars. (maybe with 500kg batteries) Public transportation is the only way for some people to get places. It makes more sense to delete personal cars that to delete the transportation of last resort.

[@jeffbguarino]

Yes it is far more expensive in the country side and cheap oil has fueled urban sprawl. I remember in school the reasons why cities form and it is because they are more efficient. The country folk will have to move to the city. This is why I never moved to the country because I value my time and don't want to drive 50 miles to see a doctor or buy groceries that are cheaper. I don't burn a lot of gasoline either. That is why I can't understand why Trudeau is penalizing city drives and giving tax money as a carbon rebate to people living outside of the city. The burn so much gas driving home to work everyday.

[@_in_the_third_grade2101]

48:02 Rachel is allergic to economists

[@jesse8025]

chris martensons book is called the crash course. There are 2 editions so get the recent one.

[@vincewhite5087]

Peak oil doesn’t mean running out of oil right away, but loss first of CHEAP OIL. EASY TO GET & cheap to extract.

[@robertpedersen6831]

Thank you for your work.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

How will you make your candles ?

[@rapier1954]

Just because they are running out in Scotland doesn't mean they are going to everywhere else soon. When I was a boy and I am now 69 people with diagrams and data said this and that about oil and it would be long gone before 2020. The point is I don't have a crystal ball and neither does anyone else and these sorts of videos draw the same people into the comments section making the same type of comments their type have been making for decades. And of course chaps like this chap are always dead certain and always right.

[@BananaBananaBanana-y3k]

trying to understand actual available reserves is not a waste of time. if oil production stopped suddenly (and by suddenly I'm talking over a period of a decade) then that would be an economic catastrophe of a scale the world has never seen. understanding the present is the first step of preparing for the future

[@michaeledwards2251]

The people you knew as a boy were correct. They simply couldn't take into account technologies which hadn't been developed. For example Fracking. The next 2 technologies for energy will be 1. Subsurface hydrogen, estimated 1 trillion tons. ( Viability to be proven ) 2. Methane Clathrates, estimated ? ( Japan has already done extraction trials )

[@effexon]

@@michaeledwards2251 combustion engine efficiencies have improved tremendously too.... how low fuel consumption can get nowadays , soem 3liters per 100km, is staggering when in 60s or 70s it was way over 10liters(small car). these small accumulating improvements happen everywhere.

[@ouimetco]

Easy to stick your head in the sand when your life is near the end- statistically speaking. Are you grandpa Simpson?

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@effexon Not as much as they should have. IGNORED ENGINE IMPROVEMENTS Achates opposed piston engine designs, about double typical mileage per gallon, have been developed. Additionally Taurozzi Engines were not developed beyond medical uses which demonstrate their viability. CHEAP FUEL The problem proved to be the low price of fuel. Economically successful companies simply ignored efficient designs as interfering with throughput, requiring retooling and reconceptualization, and ease of immediate profit. LIGHT MODERN CARS Much of the supposed improvement is down to lighter frames and better aerodynamics : all vehicles look alike due to aerodynamic improvements. 1960s vehicles were mostly heavy gauge steel : a weight of a ton for a small car wasn't unusual. (Iron is cheap) CRASH TESTS DOMINATE Modern vehicles only have enough stiffness to pass crash tests : additional strength is a disadvantage as it increases impact g forces with an increased rate of death and injury. TIMES 10 AVAILABLE The estimated improvement remaining for cars is about a factor of 10 1. KE recovery, developed in the 1960s by Peugeot and Lotus, the Treasury in the UK objected, feared loss of petrol tax, resulting in the designs and patents being given to Toyota, who dare not use the technology : they knew both Lotus and Peugeot were disappointed at the turn of events. (Worth a factor of 2 in urban environments)(Used in formula 1) (Discovered this due to reading a letter to the Daily Mail 40 years later. The sender was still furious after only 40 years. ) 2. Engine improvements, see ignored engine designs above. (Worth a factor of 2 - 3 in all environments, and more in urban ones, due to the greater range of optimal operation for opposed piston designs. ) (Tanks engines in urban environments only achieve 11% efficiency. Large opposed piston engines for articulated lorries achieve 57% on a testbed. ) 3. Dross reduction : most vehicles have a single user. 2 wheel gyroscopically stabilized cars, have been demonstrated since the 1960s, 1/2 front cross-sectional area, weight, with further improvements in aerodynamics, due creative curves. (Artistry can beat computers, even today. The World record for cyclists, over 60 mph, was achieved using designs created by a sculptor, demonstrating how useful even 100 Watts, less than the power of light hoover can be. (Less than 1/10 hp.) ) (Worth a factor of 2 in urban environments, and more than 2 on motorways, while retaining the crash safety of their bigger 4 wheel cousins. ) 4. Electronic aids : human driving styles increase fuel consumption by 25%. All of the above can be achieved using technology proven on the road. I might add, a factor of 10 is available for most high power systems, chemical plants, etc. A fundamental redesign is needed to achieve this.

[@globalwarming382]

In Canada the oil sand takes 2 barrels to get 3 barrels. In texas the Permian basin they us solar to power the pumps that pump out the natural gas.

[@kenvrinten3450]

Baloney

[@georgenelson8917]

I live in Texas and unfortunately the Permian basin oil field is the only thing keeping the deadly fossil fuels supplies . When that field peaks the game gets grim and deadly.

[@beavischrist5]

Checkout fossilfuel scam!!! Empty oil wells are filled again after 60 years. Its not fossil!!!.

[@MikeHunt-c5p]

The petrochemicals and fertilizers are much more alarming

[@nickolaiorlov4732]

Hey I have an idea why the world is in crisis US Federal Budget: 2015: 3.9 Trillion 2016: 3.9 Trillion 2017: 4.1 Trillion 2018: 4.0 Trillion 2019: 4.4 Trillion 2020: 6.5 Trillion 2021: 6.8 Trillion 2022: 6.3 trillion 2023: 6.1 Trillion We started spending 50-60% more without making 50-60% more.

[@michaels4255]

That is an additional problem that will interact in complex ways with several other severe problems.

[@laurencevanhelsuwe3052]

Having gone through a proper climate depression a few years back, here's a golden tip to see the future with a smile on your face: the earth's biodiversity is the most precious thing this planet has to offer. If humanity is soon going to collapse, if our billions will be forcefully knocked back to hundreds of even just tens of millions.. then the million other lifeforms on the planet can only welcome our much-needed "correction". All the signals of impending societal doom should be embraced by anyone who truly loves nature.

[@effexon]

there is silver lining already: think how older people live... their lifestyle is pretty modest vs active 30-50yo working age person wanting to go constantly somewhere. lot of people being pensioners or older means dramatic shift. I dont expect dramatic decline unless WW3 is started or global famine or something similar. It would be graceful, slow process adjusting to new prices. This has already happened from 80s, albeit not for climate reasons. Graceful change allows for lasting change in society... dramatic revolutions and conflicts tend to just reset things.

[@KeepItSimpleSailor]

Dude. You need some sunlight, cut down on absolutely all media consumption, and be in the real world.

[@jenspi4725]

Google it: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[@lakecrab]

Looks like I came in with the Hydrogen Bomb, HVAC and TV ... going out to campfires and crickets.

[@kalliste23]

Water availability is going to be the critical problem long before that.

[@liamhickey359]

Where I am rain fall is double to quadruple the average. Farmers are.finding it very difficult.

[@michaeledwards2251]

@@liamhickey359 At the moment 1/2 billion people eat food depending on aquifers. They are expected to be exhausted in a generation.

[@DesignTrek]

Thank you for the timely interview. The link to his mentioned publications is broken. Do you have any other sources to offer?

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

65 million years ago, the co2 levels were far higher than today, the sea levels were probably higher, the climate was warmer and wetter, the plants were greener, and many of the creatures were larger. All in all, the world was in a far better shape than it is today.

[@stevo728822]

600ft higher

[@markTheWoodlands]

Soon enough you'll see what this new world has to offer.

[@KarenBarrow]

Of course it was better, it wasn’t polluted.

[@Anders01]

Yes! I have suspected that there has been a global energy crisis for many years. The COVID disaster reduced a lot of oil consumption and climate change debate has lowered the consumption a bit and the Ukraine war some, yet the energy crisis remains I believe. My guess is that the world economy will keep going because of technological innovation, but yes it's a major worldwide issue.

[@A3Kr0n]

I bought my etrike last year when Arthur Berman scared me on Nate Hagen's channel so I'm good. I also stocked up on old Easter chocolate today for that coming shortage.

[@juskahusk2247]

It won't last a week.

[@rapier1954]

Be careful where you park it a lot of these ebikes are catching fire.

[@cal48koho]

Just discovered Rachel's excellent site. Alister describes a thermodynamic model of oil depletion but does not credit the folks that I believe came up with the model, The Hill Group in the US a decade or so back. Their work was ridiculed for a variety of reasons and sort of died. I found the model credible. Why would Alister's work not suffer the same fate? Small note: he did not state why the reservoir temperature uesd was so important to his conclusions which I think Rachel should address perhaps here or in a follow up.

[@robertpedersen6831]

Good but also sad.

[@iancormie9916]

Don't expect Sunak's government to do anything, they are too busy studying Lesbian Dance Theory.

[@adambohm4367]

Nuclear and coal to the rescue

[@feouellette]

Neither are great for transportation

[@MichaelWolfe1000]

I stumbled across Mark P. Mills who somehow claims oil won't ever run out.... you figure...

[@digger105337]

Oil is almost limitless, the earth is creating more as we speak ( there is no rotted vegetation or dead creatures in oil) it's a mineral derivative. There's also so much that has been found, but not tapped yet. And they keep finding more and more everywhere. Theres lots available that isn't being tapped or explored for political reasons. Oil's not rare and not going anywhere in the next 500 years. And C02 is a wonderful thing.

[@kenny3485]

Source?

[@didforlove]

@@kenny3485 this cant be true

[@kevincrady2831]

@@kenny3485 It's called "abiotic oil theory." AFAIK, it is not accepted by petroleum geologists, i.e. the people who actually know how to find oil.

[@Gazr965]

When it costs more than a barrel of oil is worth, then the remaining oil will be left, unless you can utilise wind and solar to keep the pumps running ( stopping them is not an option as that can totally cease the flow and not restarted) good luck with that one. Gaz UK

[@michaeledwards2251]

The infrastructure cannot use energy sources other than fossil fuels, Marine Diesel for ships, Diesel for trucks, Kerosene for planes, petrol/gasoline for cars. Even if the conversion loss is a factor of 2 or 3 or even more, there will be no choice. (Nuclear power will need massive expansion just to keep the system running.) Trucks and Ships will have to be kept running to allow people to eat.

[@rtarz5191]

Back in the sixties the club of rome and other alarmists said, that by 2000 the oil would run out and the world would be in famine. Whats changed?

[@evilryutaropro]

LtG was saying first half of the 21st century

[@ushalexa]

@rtarz5191, that is not what they said (and it was in the 1970s, not the 60s). Please read the book before you misrepresent their position.

[@alan2102X]

@@ushalexa Nice try, but people who say things like that NEVER actually read the material that they criticize.

[@jeffbguarino]

@@alan2102X In 1972, The Limits to Growth predicted that … the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993.

[@alan2102X]

@@jeffbguarino As I wrote: "people who say things like that NEVER actually read the material that they criticize." And it is true. They NEVER do. If they did, they would see how wrong their absurd accusations are.

[@keepitreal2902]

Say hello to massive inflation

[@effexon]

Lyn Alden said current inflation is because of this, not only oil but also other commodities this decade. So economists knew about this. I just understand basics of supply and demand and price is signal of it, inflation tool to manage it.

[@terrymoore861]

Wind power is failing as there is not enough copper cable to connect them.

[@anonymous.youtuber]

How about repurposing all the copper telephone cables buried in the ground that became useless since wireless communications became a thing ?

[@DanA-nl5uo]

Seems like that would be a problem for any electrical power plant not just wind

[@HonestSonics]

​​@@anonymous.youtuberin the spirit of this episode, consider the energy required to do that. Is it viable?

[@feouellette]

@@anonymous.youtuber Little tiny cables for phone and data. Very large cables for power transmission

[@stevemacgruther4051]

We have used up everything

[@Zt3v3]

I was told this same narrative back in 2005. 20 years ago I was told we would run out of oil by 2020.

[@GordonLedger]

Solar panels and the blades on wind turbines are made of plastic and they last about 25years in 25 years the cost of replacement will be prohibitive

[@aliendroneservices6621]

Wind cannot make wind infrastructure. That is why wind, like solar, is infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.

[@ChrisInToon]

yep but it looks great on a brochure

[@keithparker1346]

​@@aliendroneservices6621nonsense

[@alan2102X]

Oldest solar panels are now around 45 years old and still going... well, maybe not strong (since there ARE yearly incremental losses of output), but still going, and no need to replace them! With newer tech that reduces heat (the main cause of panel degradation over time), panels should last at least a century, maybe longer.

[@martythemartian99]

TODAY, some railway preservation groups are actually having trouble obtaining coal to power their steam locomotives. This is why I wince at the thought of wasting the last reserves of fuel in my 15 year old Honda Civic, just to do the shopping and visit family. We should save it so people in 50 to 200 years time can occasionally witness an actual gasoline car (60's Mustang, E-Type Jaguar etc.) being demonstrated. It is history we should save for when we are long gone.

[@rof8200]

Oil at $200 per barrel could bring out more oil reserves from around the world.

[@gunnarkaestle]

_"Oil at $200 per barrel"_ will bring down demand, aka "demand destruction". The effect is very simple to understand, please have a look at global depression.

[@jorgdahn3736]

You just have proven yourself NOT to understand EROEI.

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@jorgdahn3736 In 2022 the consumption of oil accounted for 30 billion barrel. New fields found were only 3 billion barrel.

[@frictionhitch]

If you want to get real worried, last year America "the world's breadbasket" imported more food in terms of value than it exported for the first time ever. We're all screwed

[@elliskaranikolaou2550]

Sounding like no choice but to go nuclear.

[@stevealdrich2472]

No choice but to go bye bye.

[@jamesmorton7881]

The only one at this time. We are out of energy recovery. Wars. ❤❤

[@gehwissen3975]

Trouble always starts with "No Choice" With nuclear you have to guarantee a forever stable society. Well - you can't.

[@blairhakamies4132]

Fantastic. Another great interview👌

[@smhpilot]

Good information. Great smile.

[@davidmitchell4077]

Oil companies must make a profit for exploration and production to be feasible. When the price of oil declines to levels too low to make a profit, production and exploration stop. When prices go up, the fields that were not profitable can become profitable. Technology has reduced the cost of production with things like fracking, diagonal drilling, etc. allowing marginal fields to be profitable for a while longer. I suppose that some state run oil producers could subsidize production at a loss for some time but it wouldn't be long. As Art Berman has stated, we should be saving oil for hard to electrify uses like aviation and trucking and chemical production for plastics. Negative EROI may be feasible when you are transforming the energy to a more usable form. Then, the value added could cover the extra energy cost. Not good for climate goals unless you use renewables to cover the negative EROI as was mentioned for the North Sea oil/wind facilities.

[@jeffbguarino]

They can make these fuels from natural gas or natural vegetable oils. Also they can make fuels by starting with hydrogen gas and then adding carbon somehow. The H2 is produced by splitting water with solar or other sources.

[@AgentSmith911]

We've been hearing about peak oil being right around the corner for deacdes now, it's time to let the idea die off.

[@KoDeMondo]

Eheheh because you are an idiot.. It doesn't mean this is not exist

[@zaneenaz4962]

....and over the past year the price per barrel of oil has continually declined !!! Our economic system is not pricing oil as a scare commodity. Makes one to wonder if expediency is to ignore the facts until we after the crash.

[@jrstsb1353]

The Cantarell, North Sea and Prudoe Bay oil fields are a real world example of the shocking sharp decline coming. There are many more, in fact more have peaked than have not. One at a time the dominos will fall until the world as a whole peaks. You can't maintain a society built on conventional oil with tar sand or fracking. You certainly can't maintain and grow as everyone expects.

[@randolphferguson3202]

It is now clear why the US threw Europe under the bus. It had no choice.

[@philtimmons722]

US has always had choices. Most of them better than what is chosen. If the US would quit Carbon in general, and Oil in particular, US would be doing fine, and leading the world. In Peace, not War.

[@MichaelByrt-b6c]

My feeling is to not use all the oil in the ground, but get on with alternative power creation now, solar, wind, hydro, because we may need that oil left in the ground, also recycle fossil fuel cars, and don't get depressed!

[@michaels4255]

Earth doesn't have enough minerals for the renewables revolution, even if all the other problems with renewables did not exist. Type Simon Michaux into the YT search bar. The painless, "no mass death" solution you are looking for does not exist. The sheer quantity of energy consumed per capita will decline sharply. This is inevitable. Three average americans consume as much energy on average (most of it indirectly) as two blue whales, the largest creatures that have ever existed. This is not a moral failure, but it is an unsustainable way of life.

[@Andrewskji]

Very interesting interview, as someone who has read extensively about peak oil and invesing heavily in the oil industry, I really found a gold mine of new information here! Thank you for making this interview.

[@MaxoticsTV]

Where's the link to his report in the description? This is very annoying. I can't find anything to back up his claims.

[@jb-xc4oh]

I've heard this mantra constantly since 1973, oil is always running out in 5 or 10 years. Here we are in 2024 and oil production is increasing, last year Russia drilled 220 new wells. I severly doubt there will be no oil in 16 years.

[@JohnnyBelgium]

Did you watch before responding? Peak conventional oil happened 2005-2008. Right on time. Now we are predicting peak unconventional oil. Will it be on time again?

[@jb-xc4oh]

@@JohnnyBelgium Oil is oil.

[@JohnnyBelgium]

@jb-xc4oh Finite is finite. The longer and faster we use the oil, the closer we are to depletion. You seem to think: the longer we consume oil, the further away 'the slurping sound'. It's a disaster either way. Either we run out of oil, or we make climate change worse. Unconventional oil went online when the price of oil went from $10/barrel to $60/barrel. Reserves are based on price. But when it takes more energy to mine and process and transport the fuel, than you get out of it, it becomes impossible no matter the price.

[@jb-xc4oh]

@@JohnnyBelgium Same old story. This is exactly what was said in 1919-1920 due to a shortage of oil. It was then predicted that oil would be gone by 1930. This running out of oil nonsense has been going on for over a 100 years. You forgot to mention synthetic fuel made from coal and more recently liquid hydrocarbons made from natural gas as is done in South Africa. In Canada there are enough coal deposits to supply Canada's energy needs for 10,000 years. If you think liquid hydrocarbons are going to magically vanish by 2040 you are dreaming. If crude oil runs out, liquid hydrocarbons will be made from coal and natural gas using the Fischer Tropsch process as is done commercially in South Africa.

[@JohnnyBelgium]

@jb-xc4oh Sounds expensive. As with any material, we extracted the cheap and easy stuff first. So materials and life will get ever more expensive until we can no longer thermodynamically extract the materials. When it takes more to get out than what you get out of it. If we do somehow manage to keep the global economy growing, apparently, the waste heat from all our gadgets alone will boil the oceans in 300 years. The economists who challenged The Limits To Growth paper said that resources and products would get ever more cheaper because of gains in efficiency. How are you liking your ever cheaper life? You should check out a graph of the price for fertilizer. 📈

[@07711jon]

One day we will run out of oil but the animal kingdom will not notice! In fact they will be better off. I ok with that!

[@David-z5w1c]

The near term prognosis - planetary wide mass extinction. Not electrification

[@frictionhitch]

"These Machines" are called Sterling Engines. Today the old ones make popcorn at the State Fair in the US. The question is how much biomass do we burn before complete ecological collapse? Everywhere will be Haiti

[@BillBishoff]

Oil production has always been evaluated for energy balance. You have to buy the energy to produce the oil. If that is more than the value of the energy produced, they stop producing there. American shale oil costs $30-$40 to produce with very little subsidization and we've barely started producing it.

[@beatreuteler]

Can you help me understand: If I look at statistics, 2023 woul dbe the year so far showing the highest crude oil production, indicating peak oil hasn't happen as of yet or just now. Now, Mr. Hamilton is saying this was 2008 to 2010. Is he referring to the thermodynamic model stating that the net energy provided by the oil indsutry to the users of the world that peaked back then because of the ever raising amount oil companies invested to get this oil out?

[@vincentkosik403]

Good discussion and learned much...yes, Art Berman is also very good too. Glad I'm old and hoping it can last a bit longer

[@michaelmackey754]

Great video! Thanks!

[@woodliceworm4565]

Oil and gas will be extracted even at net energy loss because that's how it works - emissions will rise and / or solar energy will be used to extract oil and gas.

[@krisamagus1]

no