The Geography of Oil

[@chapter4travels]

Really well done, a sane and realistic energy review. I think that once the general population understands that the energy transition is going to take over 100 years, we will make better energy decisions.

[@garysarela4431]

Expect 15%-25% reduction in global per capita output by 2100 with 2.5-3.0°C of global warming. Source: M.Burke et al. (2018) "Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets"

[@chapter4travels]

@@garysarela4431 I expect a 200% increase in global per capita output, fueled by an equal or greater energy output coming from advanced nuclear energy technologies. World population will be somewhere in the 4-6 billion range with huge gains in quality of life and environmental flourishing. unlimited energy equals unlimited prosperity. The future's so bright, ya gotta wear shades.

[@garysarela4431]

@@chapter4travels Renewable energy is cheap and available now. Nuclear energy has big upfront costs & lengthy construction times, but hopefully that improves quickly. The timeline to transition away from fossil fuels is very short.

[@chapter4travels]

@@garysarela4431 the timeline is roughly 100 years, probably longer. "Renewables" don't replace fossil fuels, they just make the overall system more expensive and complicated.

[@garysarela4431]

@@chapter4travels We may feel like the timeline should be 100 years, but global warming physics doesn't take any of that into consideration. Many countries have pledged net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, based on recommendation from scientific experts.

[@northerncaptain855]

This is one of the best podcasts covering energy. Thank you.

[@uhtredlundar8394]

Excellent presentation and couldn't agree more with his finishing statement - 'enduring victory is education', awesome!

[@jivefive99]

Sounds like everything is just fine. Back to happy motoring! :)

[@Warp9Cat]

Decouple Media is Top Shelf

[@leoflores2874]

Another great educational episode, thanks!!!

[@PotentialExergy2]

Great interview!! Very interesting discussion.

[@graemetunbridge1738]

1:07 '... don't squander the gift of time.' but we have sat on the global heating promblem for 100 years now, totally wasting the opportunity to avoid the huge problems while it was relatively easy to avoid trouble.

[@andrejmucic5003]

At 8 minutes: he’s a non-sci guy money guy.

[@wm.scottpappert9869]

Great point .... rationality doesn't necessarily prevail. We're living in an extremely polarized age where herd mentality and tribalism prevails and continues to be pushed to the edges of polarity of choice. In response to Wm Butler Yeats famous claim in his poem 'The Second Coming' .... the center MUST hold. thanks to Jimmy Fortuna and Chris for another stellar Decouple podcast ... an essential part of the center

[@lucmarchand617]

Thank you bring guest.i learn a lots myself from calgary, alberta.yes, opec is not same now.the books rise and fall opec very book learn.thank you.😊

[@paulmccormick2442]

Great show. I've never heard anyone discuss: What is the long term consequence of sucking all the oil out of the crust?

[@kaya051285]

Almost nothing. The ground is very dense and if you go a few hundred plus meters down you can even explode nukes and have little surface disturbance

[@Loanshark753]

So no problems similar to those of ground water depletion

[@RyobiCEO]

Had to watch this on 1.75 speed

[@Frankenspank67]

Ya I've been watching almost every video now on 1.5x speed. Just seems like everyone talks so slow now

[@braeburn2333]

Technology helps extract a resource faster, and can unlock previously uneconomic reserves, this is possible to an extent. Where this breaks down is when the cost (either in the currency that consumers can provide,or in energy input into the process of "poducing" that oil or nat gas), becomes to high then the system breaks down. Shortages are inevitable unless the prices rise to the point that few could afford. In either case, many go with out, many become destitute.

[@Wambamdoozle]

Fracking was an idea so expensive it was shelved as impossible. Then oil got expensive, expensive enough to create a profit from fracking. Everyone uses the previously expensive tech and it brings prices down, now oil is cheap. Your example contradicts yourself

[@Spacedog79]

"Cartel countries want oil to be priced $1 lower than would create a recession." It's obvious when you think about it but this applies to almost all energy producers both public and private. Oil and other fossil fuels are a finite resource so of course you'd want prices as high as possible not just to make money but also to not exhaust your national supply earlier than absolutely necessary. This essentially makes human flourishing through energy abundance near impossible unless this equation can be changed. It seems clear nuclear power is the only energy source that can break this paradigm because there is an effectively unlimited supply of fuel, you won't run out so creating abundant energy is not going to come back to bite you later. But not just any nuclear energy, the profit motive means privately owned nuclear still has the same problem of wanting to keep prices as high as possible. Nationally owned nuclear energy operated for the public good would thus be the only viable pathway to human flourishing, but ironically for all other energy producers this would be existential so it is the pathway they will fight tooth and nail to avoid.

[@jjuniper274]

I remember the energy crisis.

[@muskepticsometimes9133]

great show my take-away from last 10 minutes is that US has tremendous stupidity risk.

[@pootieputin2771]

This guy doesn't understand fracking... just follow Art Berman if you want an experts' take on our energy predicament.

[@DF-ss5ep]

I wonder how much of the world has a surprising explanation related to oil. Another teasing question I have, which is for the future, is what the effects of this oil boom will be on the US in the long term. Many a country has been destroyed by a resource glut. Will it ultimately destroy democracy? As much as it pains me to say it, maybe the activist movements have a beneficial side to them.

[@daniellarson3068]

Good podcast -The guy had a good practical attitude. He is right about getting us educated. I do think his prediction of Russia becoming a bigger producer of oil in the future may be off base. Of course, as China begins to take over more and more of Russia's resources, perhaps this will happen.

[@andrejmucic5003]

First 4 minutes he tells us basically nothing about what he does or who he is. Not informative.

[@rqdkaodngos]

I think Saudi arabia should spent their money to build nuclear reactor. electric supply for industrialization and water via desalination. Two bird one stone.

[@jelesstaats5130]

Reality hits the road, thanks.

[@TheLastOilMan]

The 70's "gas crisis was due to some genius in Exxon saying the oil is gone ! It was completely wrong, he probably made a fortune ! The US moved to SUV's go figure !

[@stevendavidstoffers2679]

2 Saudi Arabias! with a $2 life cost and a pop of 40 million? more like USA... mega mega consumers as well. everything from home prices to a blood workup and overnight packages hinging on this. and linear eh? just take Hansen's reassessed sensitivity of 5.9 C, and the 20 to 25 year heat sink, so that if it is even at all in the ballpark, food and social in turn mean it is not at all gonna be 'linear'. Girlie Man talk. at best. except the 'we ain't doing nuclear let alone fast enough'.. yeah and still 98% diesel [a guess] not "High Speed" rail... and 99% super cheap aviation grade 'Travel' fuel dependent. hoo ahh USA! nuttier than North Korea.

[@joelfaulk]

Can someone abbreviate? Bullish or Bearish?

[@DF-ss5ep]

Bullish because of developing countries, bearish because of political activism.

[@joelfaulk]

Anything unique? Known for 60 years? Minute place on unique idea?

[@pascalbercker7487]

NO ONE in 2024 should be using a headset with a microphone that only call centers in India use in order to make a podcast. The content is otherwise very very good, but such a headset your guest is using is not professionally credible insofar as the audio quality is concerned.

[@hristinapasheva]

Yet the audio is high quality. What are you actually complaining about, good sir? Sniping for sniping’s sake?!

[@TheDanEdwards]

Nary a mention of climate change, just "policies" and "environmental politics". "Roger Pielke Jr." being invoked positively should be a red flag.

[@chapter4travels]

The energy transition will take 100+ years, so oil and gas supplies are very important.

[@paullafreniere3393]

Please provide a reference supporting your opinion of his work

[@TheDanEdwards]

@@paullafreniere3393 I was describing this video.

[@pascalbercker7487]

Can you provide details as why one should be cautious about Roger Pielke Jr.? He is often cited as a knowledgeable reference on climate change. Is this an error? Why?

[@chapter4travels]

@@TheDanEdwards He's a climate Doomer and Pielke is not, that's the criticism.