Ideosphere Forum
From Sat Aug 25 17:32:39 2018
Received: from (localhost [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7PLWd7F003888
	for <>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:32:39 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id w7PLWdm2003887
	for fx-propose-outgoing; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:32:39 -0400
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id w7PLWdKp003882
	for <>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:32:39 -0400
Received: from localhost (unknown [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB67BA4004
	for <>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 21:32:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Spam-Scanned: JTAN Spam and Virus Filtering
Received: from ( [])
	by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29D7BBA4002
	for <>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 21:32:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-JTAN-Received: []
X-JTAN-Recipient: <>
Received: from [] ( [])
        (authenticated bits=0)
        by  with ESMTP id w7PLWYLO027501
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO)
        for <>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 21:32:36 GMT
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Proposal: 'POIL30'
References: <>
From: Roland Postle <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 22:32:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

 My thoughts here..

The difficulty of identifying *the* peak of oil production is that there 
are many different reasons we might reach *a* peak. Most of those 
reasons don't definitively say there won't be a new peak a few years or 
a few decades or more later. However some reasons are more interesting 
and more oil-related than others, and are therefore more likely to cause 
long lasting peaks.

A useful comparison might be copper or tin. I wish I could find some 
data to back this up, but presumably production of both peaked shortly 
before the bronze age collapse and those peaks were probably not 
surpassed for many hundreds of years afterwards. With the benefit of 
hindsight this was a very significant peak, but the bronze age itself 
lasted thousands of years of turbulent human history and would have 
experienced many localised copper/tin mining peaks too as civilisations 
and trade routes rose and fell. Although it would still have been very 
hard to spot at the time, the defining clue that the last peak was 
sustainable was the shift to iron use.

Back to oil, the current biggest driver of increasing use & production 
seems to be population growth. Oil is famously price inelastic. 
Collectively we go to great lengths to get our daily fix but we have 
done for a long time now. Per-capita oil production has been remarkably 
stable for several decades (masking some regional variation) since a 
probable peak around the 70s oil crisis. World population and oil 
production rise together and so they may well plateau, or fall together. 
I think in trying to predict peak oil production there's a real danger 
we just predict a flu pandemic or significant nuclear exchange that 
causes a >5% population drop. Followed by a new peak oil after 
population recovers.

Conversely, if attempts to combat climate change bring about a global 
per-capita fall in oil consumption & production of 10% over 6 years that 
might be a kind of bronze-to-iron signal that's very interesting and 
predictive of a long-lasting peak, but with natural population growth of 
~1% a year it still wouldn't represent a 5% drop in total oil production.

Even if we're interested in testing a supply-driven peak oil (as opposed 
to a politically lead demand-driven drop) population is still a problem 
because more bodies pulling smaller quantities of more expensive oil out 
of the ground could mask an otherwise clear 'finite oil' signal. (Oil 
prices would be more interesting here, if it weren't for that price 
inelasticity & associated volatility.)

So this is really a long-winded way of saying wouldn't it be better to 
factor out world population?

Another half-idea is to look at oil as a percentage of total world 
energy use. The 70s oil peak appears to have coincided with a temporary 
energy-use peak. In other words oil wasn't replaced in the energy mix, 
we just used less oil and energy temporarily, then transitioned to 
making more efficient use of it. Those efficiency gains were never 
reversed but the event didn't lead to a sustained drop in oil use 
because it wasn't really replaced by anything better. More recently oil 
as a share of total energy has decreased significantly, presumably 
caused by the relatively cheap cost of other fossil fuels, and with 
increasing renewable energy production. Looking at how this trend plays 
out could be interesting, but this is probably another claim entirely. 
It would rest on finding solid figures for all kinds of energy and 
pinning down what type of energy measure really matters, which might be 

- Roland

Back to regular message display

All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL