FANTASTIC dialogue, Nate and Arthur! My favorite quote from Arthur was, “Oil ain’t what it used to be.” Nate’s nice zinger was, “Renewable energy can power a great civilization, just not this one.” Please keep Arthur in your rotation, Nate, and thanks for fleshing out the prescient contributions of the late MK Hubbert. I didn’t know he advocated population control. He clearly understood Malthus.
Besides the fact that enough photons shower down each hour to power our civilisation for a year, we live on the surface of an untapped molten ball, add to that we are surrounded by renewable energy water and wind, Nate is not only a little bit wrong, he assumes our civilisation doesn't become more efficient in use and production, which it has been doing the whole time.
@@jamesgrover2005 All the energy sources you mentioned require infrastructure to be useful in an industrial civilization. Also, having a new cheap energy source would be a disaster for the already stressed wildlife habitats that do exist.
@@cynthiaquilici6793 the Large hadron collider at CERN, it's energy consumption is 1.3 TWh per year while the total electrical energy production in the world is around 20000 TWh. That 1.3TWh is delivered by electricity, I'm not sure who has been telling you only oil can power industry, but they are lying to you. All energy on this planet is derived from the sun, including your oil and gas.
@@jamesgrover2005 Show me the mines that run on electricity. Show me the excavators. Show me the transport. Show me how you make tires and asphalt out of electricity. That 1.3TWh, btw, is mainly provided by the *concentrated* and easily-transported energy embodied in gas, coal, and oil. We can only make use of *concentrated* (not diffuse) energy for the intense purposes our society currently requires. Did I forget to point out that it needs to be concentrated to do effective work at scale?
Art is such a treasure. I formerly worked as an amateur energy analyst and compiled data and graphs that illustrated what Art has been showing and little of what he has been saying surprises me. What surprises me is the magnitude has grown so much since I quit. I knew what factors he mentioned were in play but it is so much more now.He is a gold standard energy analyst and a national treasure and few people outside our little circle have ever heard of him!
I think that the reason few people understand or care about peak oil is that they truly believe renewables will save us and allow us to carry on as before. And the sooner we completely stop using oil, the better. The media all push this viewpoint. If they were right there would be no need to subsidise renewables and legislate against fossil fuels.
The other huge problem with "renewables" is the utter disrespect for all the natural landscapes they keep invading. Big Wind is visually the worst offender, and solar sprawl failed to take over rooftops and parking lots as it should have. See the Princeton Andlinger Net-Zero America 2050 map; a staggering amount of land and ocean is slated for development.
Discloser, I am a petroleum production expert with some decades experience on oil and gas industry and I am very familiar with developing conventional oil and gas reservoirs and unconventional shale and tight oil and gas reservoirs. First, let me express my consideration for both experts bringing on public this video with subject energy from oil and gas and peak oil, an old subject but with fresh and more complete data and argument. The Geologist Arthur E. Berman is an incredible expert with deep and broad knowledge not only on petroleum geology but he for many decades show on publics on a clear way the challenges on oil and gas industry and give and solutions and directions. I personally accept the theory of peak oil and Arthur E. Berman bring this subject very clear and support the peak oil with data and arguments. He include on arguments and technology role. And in fact all technologies applied on oil industry have postponed the peak oil as it is described. The world has proved the Peak discovery and for many decades the oil consumed has been higher than new discoveries and together with new technologies, the world has arrived to produce the oil and gas needed from economy. The price increased for oil and gas has played a great role on energy security, because the company profit is reinvested for keeping production on a high price environment. Together new technologies and new discovered have postpone the peak oil and for at least one decade these has been on a plateau. Today oil and gas industry even on plateau, the production of water is very serious and problematic and existing technologies can not keep growing production of oil which limit and recoverable reserves which are estimated around 1.7 trillion barrels. This 1.7 trillion barrels if will be produced with rates the industry has today may keep production only for around 50 years and this with high risk. However the geology worldwide shows with certainty that global OOIP are more then 15 trillion barrels, and we have consumed only around 1.3 trillion and after 50 years the produced oil will be around 3 trillion barrel or only 20% of OOIP, and will live underground 80% of OOIP. On other side from many model and laboratory teste for oil recovery all displacement methods give very high oil recovery at least 60% or higher, and such values are reported on few cases. This I think is an argument that the world need technologies to increase oil recovery from all reservoirs and deal with injectant breakthrough which make technologies risky and with marginal effectivity. On unconventional oil reservoirs the oil remaining underground is up to 90% of OOIP, and there is no any EOR recognized for these reservoirs. The good thing is that for oil and gas reservoirs private experts have effective technology to inject gas of any type and increase significantly oil production and achieve high oil recovery. These undisclosed technologies can increase oil from existing depleted oil reservoir by more than 3-5 trillion barrels (on addition to 3 trillion barrels). All what is needed for this is the government together with industry must partner with inventors of undisclosed technologies which can be adopted very easy with present technologies with minimum investments. More information on these topics can be discussed only on private conversations on demand.
I have followed Arthur Burmans oil reports for thirty years it’s really nice to catch up with his analysis of what’s happening in the oil industry right now
@@jonas7510 I keep telling the young guys I work with in construction to buy a used old Honda that gets 40 mpg or better and just build a tiny house that’s well insulated and prepare for a life of scarcity. They all drive huge monster trucks and want the biggest house and a cabin on the lake to boot. I agree we have passed so many tipping points for our wasteful western lifestyles
I first got interested in peak oil after reading Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency" when it was published almost 25 years ago. Since then, I followed The Oil Drum blog until it ended some yeas ago. After that, I followed Art Berman's presentations. This presentation is an incredible update on peak oil and energy that you won't find anywhere else. At some point this type of information will be widely recognized. Unfornately, I am very pessimistic about where this is going with the growing World population and the thurst for oil by China and other rapidly industrilizing countries. If you add if Professor Mearsheimer's Neorealist geopolitical theory, the future of the World and humanity is very bleek.
I'm not certain it will be widely recognized. Capitalists are already trying to spin it in peak demand. The economy will contract because of an energy shortage and they will say the contraction is a demand issue. They can always blame covid, Putin, left wingers, Greenpeace, China, ... I'm sure the capitalist think tanks are working on a script. Some story that works in their favour. And the media will sell it to the public at large.
Thank you Nate and Art, very important findings. It would be interesting to see slide 9 multiplied by slide 11, that is the barrels-of-oil-and-equivalents, multiplied by the BTUs for each type of product. I suspect this would show the "bombshell" finding that we're way past peak-BTUs. As you point out, it's the BTUs that matter. Then as a follow-on, you might look at "surplus BTUs", i.e. net of the energy cost to extract, refine, and deliver to the point of use, which we know that cost has been rising. That would highlight the double -whammy.
If people like this find themselves not taking the ultimate in eco-choice choices, then how do we convince the other 7bn, who just want to prevent their kids from starving and perhaps get a nice gold watch to do it?
At 47 minutes Arthur says people are paid to know this, I know, I know, the cheque is in the mail. About 48:40 Nate was spitting the truth, a super organism with no one at the wheel. Thank you both very much Arthur and Nate, it's amazing the amount you can learn from just eavesdropping on podcasts. Peace
I can't believe people, especially our politicians, don't know this. I have known this for 6 years and I'm just a hillbilly who spent a couple years reading the EIA website. All this info is there. We were Never energy independent!!
Valero and another independent refinery can refine light sweet. Major refineries could be retrofitted to refine our light sweet with some investment. Instead they export it for higher arbitrage.
Aupa! Nate and Arthur, I follow you since years from Spain. Thank you very much indeed for sharing your scientific knowledge, data and analysis with us and even more, for sharing what you decript from scientific and official statistics data, that unfortunately seems not to be seen by many people and by our rulers. Nate, there is a physicist and mathematician called Antonio Turiel. He is Spanish and can speak English aswell. He works for The Institut de Ciènces del Mar as a physicist specializing in remote sensing, turbulence, sea surface salinity, sea surface temperature, water cycle, sea surface currents and chorophyll concentration. Antonio Turiel conducts a blog since about fifteen years (15): The Oil Crash. He has presented his analysis to the Spanish Senate, the Catalán Congress, the Parliament of La Rioja, several TV Interviews in different contries and about 2 or 3 prasentations a month talking about peak oil and energy in general. It would be interesting you interviewing him. All the best from Huelva, Spain.
I wonder why the network of national ASPO organisations broke down. Which ones are still left? In Germany there is a small bunch of people still discussing the topic and trying to keep the fire alive.
I think a good summary is for people to take away is that the net BTU from fossil fuels is decreasing from multiple factors. Due to lower oil quality and increased drilling difficulty, it has already peaked. And, it is only going down from here. Every major discovery is just a blip that prolongs the inevitable by a year or few.
Nate ! The last two interviews have been the most important. Congratulations on these excellent and pressing discussions. Now, what if you asked Art B. to plot world production in BTU Content instead of the conventional total liquids? It bet it would show a clear Peak and a descending trend. I fear we may already be on the irreversible downward slide. Hence the beginnings of the great simplification. What I call the "Fluff Crash".
If you use energy metrics (BTU, joules, kilocalories, etc.) instead of volume, the energy used continues to rise. This is because of increasing population, even as per capita use declines. This is the same observation as GDP increasing, even as per capita GDP declines. The culprit is overpopulation. BTW, even though people like Peter Zeihan predict China's crash, their ability to adapt quickly means that their current declining net population gives them an advantage in their domestic economy, which will soon support their international trade. In the coming years, US net population increase will drive the economy down, contrary to the economists.
I was also thinking that using BTU/energy content instead of BPOE would be interesting, and may show the peak more clearly. It's the energy content that does the work.
Enormous demonstrations in Paris today about Macron slightly increasing the age of eligibility for the Age Pension. It reminded me of the big ‘Yellow Vest’ demonstrations there a while back against increased oil prices. I can’t imagine how people will cope in the future when oil is super expensive and in very short supply, with strict rationing. People will be having mental breakdowns when they realise that it’s a permanent thing and the end of so much that we have taken for granted in our modern lifestyles.
There's quite a bit of oil bearing shale formations in Europe. Back in the early 2010s, fracking companies weren't allowed in coz of environmental concerns and Putin was providing oil and gas on a big scale, convincing Germany to build a second pipeline to get around Ukraine. After the Russians invaded, things turned around completely and Germany - with Green Party in govt consent - got back into digging up coal and lignite. With dangers of energy rebellion like the yellow vest, Europe now may be much more open to allow fracking. Next winter, existing reserves from old Russian import be used up, and them fracker cowboys could go try their luck with Macron Scholz and them Polish guys.
Especially when people see that the rationing does not apply to the elite. The will continue to fly around in their private jets, but will lecture us on how we should live.
Except some of the chief peak oil doomers run on fraud and lies themselves. EG: Simon Michaux - the 'we're running out of metals' guy - is a chief liar himself. He argues we need 4 weeks of metal batteries. Why no pumped hydro? He claims there are difficulties finding enough sites. Really? His 1000 page PDF doesn't reference a source - but he shares it here. ruclips.net/video/LBw2OVWdWIQ/видео.html Get this. Michaux cherry-picked a PHES viability study about SINGAPORE! I laughed out loud when I heard him admit that. Their highest hill is only 15 metres. Gee - I wonder why they had trouble finding enough sites!? I call this dumb trick “Painting the world Singapore.” But instead pumped hydro is most economic where there are actually hills. Imagine that? If you triple the 'head', you halve the cost. Professor Andrew Blakers presents the REAL story. Most countries have 100 times the sites they need. If they don't, a neighbour does. ruclips.net/video/_Lk3elu3zf4/видео.html They have identified the 616,000 best sites around the world. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ So one of the MAIN arguments against renewables and EV's just vanishes with this ONE fact - Michaux lied about pumped hydro. There are other MANY lies from this man - but my point is this ONE extreme example of cherrypicking shows what an outright liar this chief doomer is. And he convinced Chris Martenson to promote his rubbish!
Hey Nate sir, you have three lamps burning away behind you, for at best, decorative value. Try and shut two off .. that way you save 40% or more face-blue-smilingface-fuchsia-tongue-out
Civlization is a heat engine. Totally hooked on energy like a junkie to heroine. No matter what these privileged white men speak of or perhaps do, peak oil or peak solar, the devastation of the planet will go, till the whole system collapses. Not like some stupid Hollytrash movie, but rather like any large unstable violent empire crumbles. Now it's our global folly, this ugly civilization that's next !! Count your own emissions first instead of sermonizing like everyone else is
The visible body politic is really covering a sinfle interest:that of squeezing money out of poor folk or mid f9lk and giving it to Crapitalist Overlords.
Oh my...so we're using farm equipment that runs on diesel made from imported oil to grow corn to make ethanol that has less energy than diesel or gasoline to add to gasoline. Doesn't seem sustainable much.
Excellent video. I don't know but it seems to me that peak EROEI could be a better metric than peak oil, for as Arthur said, "oil aint what it used to be." Thanks for your work here.
I'm not the most informed on that, but I think peak EROI was at the beginning of the oil-age when all we had to do was basically stick a straw in the ground 🤷🏻♂️
Yes great conversation. I have one correction: it's muchas gracias, not muchos. If everyone had a smile like Art the world would be a better place. Seems like all anyone really needs to know is that 'one half of all the oil ever used has been used since 1995.'
Thank you for this conversation, which was both highly informative and eminently understandable to a layperson with no particular experience with energy issues.
Thank you Nate !! The final question is when our civilization is going to admit that sooner or later we are at the beginning of a new era ? Oil has permitted to frame a world that will disappear with its end ! We are not preparing ourselves for this new world without oil !
@@bobwallace9753 The answer is soon ! Yes you are perfectly right. The other question is : what will be the collateral damages we will have to support in this transition ? We can imagine we will have to face many social troubles and violence, because we are not doing nothing now to prepare ourselves for the reduction of the economy.
@@alfredmacleod8951 We're not likely to suffer any damage to our economy overall. What we are on route to is cheaper energy and less expensive transportation. And that means a decrease in producing food and goods. There will be some localized economic disruption which is already happening. The coal industry has already been cut in more than half. The oil industry will shrivel. Unfortunately our US car manufacturers have waited too long to build up their EV products and will be lucky to avoid bankruptcy. In addition to lower costs for energy, transportation, food, and goods we will start saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year on health costs due to fossil fuel pollution. And there's a larger benefit that is likely to be immense. Make a list of wars starting with WWII and then look at the number which were about or partially about oil. Think about what we spend "defending" our oil supply. As countries become energy self-sufficient we'll see an end to resource wars.
@@alfredmacleod8951 The first step is simply moving to EVs. EVs have now pretty much reached manufacturing price parity and should soon cost less to manufacture. A better car for less money. And significantly less cost to operate. Plus much longer useful lives. It looks like we're going to have moderate distance passenger planes running on batteries within the next couple of years. That will save money on both fuel and maintenance, The real kicker will be robotaxis. Tesla has stated that they can operate a robotaxi service, all costs included, for less than $0.18/mile. Even if they doubled the cost and made a 50% profit that would be cheaper than one could operate their own car. Plus there are external cost savings. Less money spent on treating health problems resulting from fossil fuel pollution. And less spent on oil wars.
Just listened to a talk given by Charlie Hall on the Canadian club of Rome yt channel. Much of what he says chimes in with Arts analysis. He doesn't pull his punches saying that the reserve estimates of oil industry, Opec, IEA , etc have been long falsified.
This has been a "thing" for awhile now, but it's difficult to explain to a wide audience that "oil" and "gas" are basically a pile of molecules, not a single product. The molecule mix has changed, and without doing a true 3 stream estimate of the hydrocarbons you have (oil, gas, NGLs) it's difficult to really know the value of the production you actually have.
New to site, so I've got to add some context, as I've been a peak oiler since 1976. Nate and Arthur do a nice job, but they come off a bit deflated by the rise in oil output since the "peak" was called. But then, they give the data to prove the peak was hit (NGL's and low EROEI matter)! Here is the thing for people new to this debate. ONSHORE CONVENTIONAL OIL HAS PEAKED! All the really important 150 or so conventional fields (Ghawar, Burgan, Ahvaz, Cantarell, Prudhoe Bay, etc) that have provided for society over the last 60 years, and were mostly found before 1975, have all (mostly) peaked. Mighty Ghawar (70 Billion PR) went from 5 Mbbls/d to 3.5Mbbls/d (per Aramco's S1); Prudhoe Bay (12 Billion PR) went from 1.5Mbbls/d to its current 350K. And the U.S as a whole dropped from around 9 Mbbls/d in the early 70's to under 6 Mbbls/d before the fracking revolution (that 6 Mbbls/d included about 1.5 Mbbls/d of offshore output). And NO, there are no more major onshore fields to be found in the world (Ghawar is 23 miles x 125 miles; you don't miss a major onshore field). So, do all conventional oil fields reach a peak production output that can never be reach again? Yes. Is the peak oil that Hubbert imagine valid, pre "crazy" , low EROEI oil production (I'm looking at you shale, tar sands, ultra deep water)? Yes. Do peak oil'ers have to cower in the corner at dinner parties? NO! The science is there, the data is there. And this NGL discussion, which I've been talking about with my investment group for years, just puts another feather in our tin foil caps. Perk up Nate and Arthur, you were correct all along!
While NGLs can be used as a refinery feedstock to manufacture diesel and gasoline, the primary component of NGLs; ethane and it's derivative ethylene is pretty useless for refining. But propane and butane along with their derivatives propylene and butylene are already seeing use for this purpose, so we can expect NGLs to somewhat substitute conventional oilwell production plateaus (and declines) at least temporarily. But that's a stopgap solution, already we know that unconventional plays deplete at much faster rates than their conventional counterparts and that they too are on pace to plateau sometime this decade in North America. So barring some monumental leaps in refrack-ing technology, the Shale boom is officially over and world "oil" production is going to peak sometime this or the next decade.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I worked for Kern County in the 1990s when oil production was depressed due to low prices. Oil had dropped to less than $20/barrel and it cost about $20 to pump the heavy crude due to the need for steam injection. This led to oil being left in the ground and a big reduction in County tax revenue. The point is that basic economics kick in when cost exceeds price and production stops. When oil prices increased, production resumed and technology like diagonal drilling extended the life of the oilfield. If the price gets too high, users cut use or substitute a less costly fuel. Hence, more Toyota Prius and EV sales are occurring at current relatively high fuel prices. My understanding is that EV life cycle emissions including mining and battery production provide a net reduction in a few years with California grid emission rates. I have home solar installed, so most of my charging is zero emission. My Audi Etron has a range of about 210 miles. It averages 2.5 miles per kWh and charges in about 30 minutes on high speed chargers used on long trips. If you home charge using off peak grid power at about 25 cents/kWh without solar, it costs about 10 cents/mile. A 25 mpg SUV using $4.00/gallon gasoline costs about 16 cents/mile. Smaller EVs are more fuel efficient than the heavier SUV EVs so, they would likely beat small IC engine cars. EV costs and solar panel costs are expected to continue declining while petroleum will likely cost more as production declines like you discussed in your talk. This will provide even more incentive to move to EVs for light duty vehicle travel. Elon Musk claims that his electric semi will be able to compete with diesel, so if true, even heavy vehicles could some day move away from diesel. If the EVs perform the same work as petroleum fueled vehicles at a similar price, there would be no change to lifestyle or to the economy. My last point is that a good quality of life does not require endless GDP growth. Most of the things we buy provide a quick adrenaline rush and then get relegated to the storage shed or trash can. People may find out that they enjoy walking and bicycling and are more healthy in the long run.
Yes. You are on the crest of the wave. The message of this podcast is that what you are doing is now going to be forced onto everyone and everything. We are going to have to change drastically and that always means investment. The bigger more interesting question is the coincidental data conclusion that the US had reached peak oil (all things considered) immediately before covid. 🤔
This subject goes hand in hand with the video Cheap Peak Oil. I stayed with relatives in Italy that had a new car running on propane/gasoline, this took advantage of a newer propane pipeline from Algeria. Propane was 1/3 or 1/2 price of gasoline. The family called the old gasoline only tiny car the fuel hog! These two videos and my experience in Italy help me understand driving our cars will slowly get more expensive.
Pretty good bit by NH and AB. I think that they kind of skipped over the concept of net energy. IOW, not only do the products we call “oil” have less of an energy content, but it takes more energy to get at them. Also, there is something that I call the “energy trap”. This is the idea that “renewables” are really just “replaceables”, and, you need “oil” in order to replace them. Never mind the fact that all they can produce is electricity. Of course, there is only so much that can be discussed in the course of an hour. Personally, I think that various forms of demand destruction will continue for the forseeable future. You see this in the form of various countries and regions that are effectively dropping out (Being forced out ?) of the oil economy, eg, Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, etc… I expect this process to continue, and accelerate. I think that when the UK gets pushed out of the world oil economy, things might get interesting. To what extent will the USA be willing and able to support the UK? That kind of thing. As always, time will tell.
Nate and Arthur, I am so pleased to rejoin such an informed discussion of Peak Oil. Back in the 90s I found the oil drum and die-off websites and I found the authoritative papers and presentations to be in direct alignment with my own investigations and research. I’m concerned with the impacts of Peak Oil on global food supply. As the inventor of SolaRoof technology I have a unique understanding of the coming collapse of the petrochemical based production of grain that accounts for about 70% of global food supply. I wrote a paper on this subject in 2013 called “closing the hunger gap” and I would be grateful to have your feedback. It presents a dire situation and I projected about 20 years to global catastrophe and we are now half way there. It’s clear from the graphic presentation that we are on track to overshoot and then global famine. Not that I am without hope - I have presented how food innovation, with my SolaRoof inventions as catalyst for change - has a very good chance to avert the worst case sceneries. I’m very happy to report that we may be on the threshold of widespread adoption of SolaRoof innovations in 2023 - but it would accelerate action if programs like yours would give a hearing to this subject of food crisis. The consequences of the ignorance surrounding the food system and it’s impacts on global ecosystems will be greater than, and felt sooner than Climate Change - the food crisis must be understood in the context of the energy crisis that you are documenting and also a global fresh water crisis. The solution is SolaRoof technology and nothing else comes close. I would be happy to explain and answer your questions! drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Uy-_RYsKzyTXlCa0lpSDc3YTd4TmJPQWJDVi1zVkFxTXcw/view?usp=drivesdk&resourcekey=0-wecLfTs-l6AGyDnrjVQzfw
Interesting thesis. Basically as we need to drill in deeper less accessible locations for oil we get less of the most valuable component (diesel) and more of the less valuable components (natural gas liquids).
Excellent discussion. I have been expecting Peak Oil to be back in the news but now I know why it is not: TPTB have 'debunked' it. Most people are ignoring what is happening with energy and don't see the depopulation solution that TPTB have settled on either.
For years, I've been hearing about "artificially low interest rates".. but aren't *negative* interest rates the rational response to a material de-growth scenario? One can't promise 10% a year from now, if there isn't going to be 10% more in real stuff to distribute back. The only reason rates were at 0-1% is because the system isn't set up for negative rates (for the most part), and we're only seeing the real rates (which are negative) via inflation. Maybe this could enter into a future discussion, because I see a lot of confusion on this front.
There’s degrowth in many sectors already. With improving environmental possibilities. EVs. Especially in China. Powered by renewables. See Tony Seba and his S curves.
Please, say it ain’t so! I’m too old to die young 😭 Thanks so much guys! Very informative. Art is one of my favorite guests that you’ve had on Nate. Looking forward to more conversations between you two in the future :)
@Sunshine Cloudyday True. The loss of soil nutrients, which I'm sure has greatly contributed to the general decrease in wellbeing, both physically and mentally. We have literally been eating hydrocarbon products since the haber-bosch process was discovered
"a climate change activist" would say...we have (and use) too much. Nate, I wouldn't expect that added characterization by someone like you. I would think that you would agree with nearly every reputable climate scientist, that were burning too much oil.
Hello Nate. Some of the past guests on your show have speculated about artificial intelligence transforming the world to no longer require physical work from people, and that we can have much more human labor devoted into things like education. Yet you and some of your other guests have said that the reality is that as oil and other natural resources deplete and resulting consequences unfold, we will need more poeple working on farms and other essential jobs, not less. Do you believe that the biophysical bottlenecks of the 21st century will constrain this vision of having more labor into education and other human-centered fields, or will the bottlenecks be primary sociopolitical and cultural, or some of both?
This is a very complicated question and I am leaving for airport shortly. I promise to address it on a 'Frankly' or podcast later this year. The short answer is this: AI uses a lot of energy to build and create (less so to implement once built) - so in itself its not a huge energy hog. Yes, AI will displace human labor needs on some/many current jobs - (but it won't displace the people! so there is a wealth/income inequality issue). But more broadly, AI does NOT dematerialize our economy - UNLESS accompanied by vastly different cultural aspirations and social arrangements. To me AI is merely another can to kick squeezing a bit more productivity out of system at a cost of greater concentration of wealth/power and higher environmental damage. To your later point/question - I DO think we will direct more labor into education and other human centered fields but that will be by necessity not by AI. All of the fancy tech proclamations about the future have occurred in a unique period of continual annual increases in global energy use - so we imagine that will always be the case. What technology - even AI - will do for us - in a period of declining energy availability (and the global nation state response to that) is unkown. Bottom line: AI at best is new form of productivity boost, not a way to reduce energy/material needs - unless paired with new economic paradigm at same time.
@@thegreatsimplification hello Larry and Nate - "Vastly different cultural and social arrangements" is exactly what "the great simplification" means. It's going to happen, like it or not. There are already "islands of coherence" - Cuba during their "special period" was one, and permaculture continues to create such islands Culturally, New Zealand's rural maraes are another, where traditionally "work" was not defined as such, but was part of societies that were self-sufficient not so very long ago, yet which valued trade very highly. The world has much to learn from indigenous cultures - Vandana Shiva told us that in one of your podcasts. But there is also much to learn from scientific research into efficient use of solar energy, including efficient combustion of green wood (which cannot be funded in New Zealand due to wholesale capture by the energy monopolies). I agree that "appropriate technology" will do much to reduce onerous labour.
If we cut back on the livestock production and dairy industries there would vast tracts of land annually for bio fuel production. And rewilding for drawdown and ecosystem revitalisation. PV to hydrogen farming implements is potentially a strong candidate for green H₂ unlike almost every H₂ pitch and hype you come across. Hydrogen won’t be the price of diesel any time soon or before we need to be NZE (yesterday really but 2050 according to IPCC), but with carbon credits for on farm reforestation it could be. Over half our crops are produced to feed livestock too. Half of global shipping is for fossil fuels. Half the oil we burn is to explore for , extract, process and transport FFs. Not denying peak oil has been passed in some ways. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing changed everything but that doesn’t mean booked reserves are not matching consumption any more and the oil is getting more expensive to extract and locate. But when we electrolyse everything as a fuel switching strategy we only need to replace 1/3 of the energy of FFs bc of the rejected energy (heat waste from friction, combustion gases etc) being 2/3 of the numbers often quoted for energy use from FFs.
@@bashful228doesn't hydrogen have the lowest energy density tho? Are talking about water hydrolysis to make H? Could be a burden on our fresh water supply.
Thanks for the wonderful podcast. I have a question that's been in my mind after watching your podcasts. In your view of likely scenarios in the future to plan for, you've said that we will need more physical human labor inputs into maintaining basic human needs as the Great Simplification starts to unravel. Yet others that you've talked to, such as Daniel Schmactenberger, posit that AI and robotic automation will lessen the need for human labor and free up humans to do other things such as invest into education (Schmactenberger says this in this podcast ruclips.net/video/fowcm7b8Dlw/видео.html at 2:26:43). How do you reconcile this?
I think the big argument is that AI and robotic automation is energy/resource blind. Automation is something that looks good on paper but is messy in action. Anything more less than 120/240v at 50/60Hz power and these things completely stop. Human power has about 10,000 different food inputs that can be used - that diversity is a huge advantage.
Without cheap energy, robotics and AI fall apart. The most efficient engine we have is the human body. It is better than either oxen or horses. That is why the future is like the past, with manual labor assuming greater importance. Vaclav Smil dismisses robotics because of their energy demands and the need for humans to organize the raw material acquisition. I make the efficiency argument for human labor in my first book, if you care to read it. The Laws of Physics Are On My Side, 2013.
Nate, I often listen to your podcasts several times in order to fully understand what the message is. Do you ever come to Canada to give lectures? I'm a former geoscientist now energy worker who is absolutely fascinated in your overall thesis.
Thank you Arthur Berman and Nate Hagens. I teach middle school science. Our 8th grade curriculum requires teaching a unit on energy. This discussion clears up questions I have had about the differences between oil, petroleum and natural gas.
I teach 8th grade as well. The kids think solar and wind will solve climate change. They don't know that we need oil for solar panels and wind turbines.😂😂
Thanks, Nate and Art for this clear view! Those graphs of Art do give us the surprising facts behind the trade.. It also shows us: the problem is in the 'needs' we have. If we would 'need' more wooden tables, there wouldn't be a precious tree still standing in all the protected forests in the World. It does not matter what kind of regulation you create to prevent this from happening, there will always be a method for the 'gain' to succeed. We simply have to STOP saying ' I need'..for ourselves. This could be a SUV, sneakers or a hamburger, it does not matter what. We ARE the creator of this, as We Are This World. Thanks again, let's move on!
I wonder what a production curve chart would look like of simply just global diesel and gasoline production alone since those 2 are the main components that drive our economy... no pun intended. Have we reached peak diesel+gasoline production worldwide?
@@sonnyeastham Can you explain what you think the "peak oil concept" is? To me Peak Oil is "oil production rates reaching a peak and declining due to oil being a finite resource".
FTR, Hubbert noted all the tight shale in his assessment but there wasn't an economic way to access that oil (and gas) in his day. It wasn't until geosteerable drilling (developed offshore Louisiana in the 1990's) combined with the post WWII technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing making horizontal drilling accurate enough to target the tight shale plays. Let's not forget the importance of very heavy and heavy crude oil. Syncrude from very heavy oil was begun during WWII in Canada. Very heavy crude is great for refineries with coking capacity and petcoke went from something sold as a byproduct of squeezing the last bit of gases (afterwards changed into diesel and gasoline) from the bottom of the barrel into a profit center in the early/mid 1980's. These dudes don't seem to get that crude oil is not just fractionated into gasoline, diesel, kerosene and heavier products but the entrained gases as well as the gases developed by cat crackers are rearranged into "octane" This has been going on since before WWII. I see little understanding of the refining processes between these two fellows
1:02:30 Peak oil is not “just a theory” or “a simple observation”. It is a consequence of Rolle’s Theorem (math, calculus, published around 1690). Note: Theorem is a mathematically proven (or provable) statement. Always true, no exceptions. Rolle’s Theorem states that if a function f has the same value at two points (f(a)=f(b), a
So the energy value per barrel crude is worth 20 percent less compared to 20 years ago, and the pre-2000 fields are gradually producing less per year, starting today at 6% per year?
For some reason this frightened me more than the usual basket of worries. There's a certain finality to Peak Oil. Once the fossil fuels are gone, we will not have the ability to mine for anything we need to get around them so we need top people working on this like yesterday.
Hi Nate. I am very glad to have run into your work again. I also remember those TOD days and I agree the story is far more nuanced. At the time I did a Masters degree in Sustainability, but its energy component was disappointing so I began looking for a pHd that covered the nexus between energy and economics. I never did find that, but I do agree with you. The story is very complex, but definitely is far more nuanced than all those discussions back in TOD days. My own take on it is that the global economy can accept a price up to around $100. Over that; and the economy attenuates to manage price, but how it does that depends on a myriad of factors at various levels: country, taxation, distance, oil % in the economy and energy mix etc. Another important factor that has recently crossed my radar is demographics. China's population will halve in the next 30 years and other countries that also have significant demographic problems will also experience declines. In fact China's population peaked either in 2021 or 2022. This issue will also have a massive impact on our economies and energy flows. We live in interesting times! (Nod to Confucius)
Great discussion! Just curious about Art's last point that renewables may help with electricity, but that's the easiest part of the problem. I would like to know what the hard parts of the problem are. Really enjoyed this one!
@@paulwhetstone0473 Could be the values. Could also be modern manufacturing, whose processes require heat only possible (including affordable) with the high energy density of fossil fuels.
In the video "Art Berman- The Real Energy Paradigm" (uploaded to RUclips on Sept. 17, 2022), Berman says that electric power generation accounts for only 18% of world energy consumption, and that 82% of world energy is put to other uses. I guess ground, air, and sea transportation would be one of these, as well as industry and construction (including cement and steel production), and non-electric heating.
Transport. Heavy and medium, agriculture.mining refining metals, where high temps and reducing fuels are required,, replacing diesel..that's 75% of energy we use..there's a start..
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 It was recently found that, if current data storage trends continue, within one or two centuries the amount of energy that will be required to maintain all of the world's computer data will exceed the amount of available energy of all types on the earth.
The point Art makes and Nate backs up at 1:06:15 is everything. It is the predicament, in a nutshell. Few people seem to understand that we don't have the technology to continue powering civilization as we know it when fossil energy goes away. And thank goodness! I hope we never find a substitute for oil. If we do, we're toast (if we're not already).
i have read all your comments i cant believe you fall for the lies these people tell you. You are a narciistic woman and these sustainability people want to bring communism wake up
Brilliant discussion / presentation. Great Simplification website is also exemplary in the way Nate has so rigorously detailed and notes all the facts and data Art Berman has so thoroughly researched and presented. I like your equilibrium Art - frankly I think the future is terrifying, given how, as you pointed out, so few are aware of the facts and how most others just don’t seem to care either way. How is it possible, when the world finally wakes up to this reality, to avoid a major world war over who gets to use the remaining available economically-feasible resources given the trajectory? 27% of all oil consumed in human history was consumed in the last 22 years? (I hope I got that right from memory). That means current so-called civilization expiry date is not that far away. Renewable energy has already been exposed for the hoax it is; albeit if renewable technology and available resources were able to deliver on the pipe-dreams then all would be just fine. What is in desperate need of renewing are the brains and mindsets of people, especially those passing themselves off as our leaders in government and industry. A great awakening is coming and it will not be pleasant.
A kilowatt is a kilowatt. It doesn't matter whether it comes from renewables or fossil. Renewables are not a "hoax". They are now the majority of new electric capacity.
So it sounds like a shifting definition of "oil". Oil is almost the basis of currency. Almost like a gold standard. Oil is traded in Dollars and arguably helps prop up the dollar. If "oil" no longer actually means oil, it's like an accounting trick to make "oil" into its own FIAT currency basing it's value on expectations rather than reality. So we have the Dollar (a FIAT) propped up by "oil" which is ow also a FIAT? Am I really messing that up?
OK, snob Canadian physicist here: 1 mmBTU is 1.06 GJ and 1 m^3 is 6.29 barrels. So the energy density of crude oil is 1.06 GJ/0.159 m^3 = 6.7 GJ/m^3 or 6.7 MJ/L . Bonjour du Québec! Continuez votre beau travail! Addendum: where is Gail Tverberg? have any of you had some discussion with her? (I'm new to this channel..)
Final comment. A good podcast and worth watching. Berman's final point that renewables are only good for electricity production and that is but a fraction of our energy use was probably the most salient point.
The video is an excellent presentation. Hubbert's main premise was that all mega-reservoirs had already been discovered, and all were already in decline. That has proven true. What he underestimated was the new technologies that would make EOR and other "oil" available. This is why no one can forecast end dates, even today. The conclusion is the same as it was 30 years ago - we will eventually run out of oil, and as of now, there are no substitutes. Draw conclusions based on those facts.
Personally, being in Pennsylvania, I knew we reached peak when they fracked us. Why else would they use such an expensive process if the cheap stuff was still around??
When you put E85 (85% ethanol) in a Flex Fuel vehicle, the mileage goes down drastically on the range computer. E85 is not cheap enuf to make it a good deal.
I saw that around '08 or '10 with my first prius. Same with the second too. And here's a tip - those fuel perks from grocery stores are a bunch of hooey. They sell you crappy gas at that perk discount, but you burn more, so no to little $$ savings. Its all a money grab, unfortunately, a shell game.
Great discussion. I learned a lot. Thank you, Nate and Arthur. Talking of hydrocarbon’s use as a single category: “energy production” is a bit like talking about gold’s use as a single category: “money”. Both gold and hydrocarbons are used for other purposes: hydrocarbons for baggies and diapers, gold for jewelry and circuit boards. Grading the final use as an indicator of the efficiency of the energy density of the specific hydrocarbon is both specious and a fool’s errand. Let the market decide the utility of baggies in terms of their market price. Clearly companies that produce baggies will stop producing them when their price drops to the marginal cost of production. On an aside, Hubbard’s thought of using “energy certificates” and the past and present use of gold as a store of value are parallel in that the base products yield derivatives (jewelry, baggies, etc) that reduce the efficiency of their respective “mining” operations. On the other hand, the energy input to mining bitcoin yields no derivatives. It is as efficiently produced a store of value as has ever been. It’s not paradoxical that bitcoin miners are moving closer and closer to producing bitcoin using raw energy sources and not the derivatives of electrical service providers. Why pay $0.02 per kW-hr to the local electricity service provider when you can capture inexpensive, flared natural gas gas, pass it through a gas turbine, produce 220/110vac, 50/60 Hz power from that turbine and run your own bitcoin mines? The result is electricity costs of less than $0.01 per kW-hr - and no reliance on the volatile costs of large electricity SPs. The market will adapt to “peak” hydrocarbons even in the face of government regulations that produce an energy price forcing function that eliminates (or reduces) hydrocarbon consumption before its time.
Good discussion. Perhaps we should start focusing on peak diesel? We can survive without automobiles, airplanes and plastic bags, but not without diesel for trucks, trains, ships, tractors, and combines.
I don't know that plastics aren't vital. Plastic bags is kind of dismissive given the range of key critical items made of plastic (including much of the trucks, trains, ships, tractors, and combines).
Congrats, so clear! I think the optimistic sesgo and confirmative sesgo get us blind , and one try to talk about this the other people say "Tecnoology save this problem" don`t worry about that. For me it is very frustrating, then and I remember a quote from Mark Twain. 'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'? the best for you
To build on the energy density comment, ethanol has a lower BTU content than the material it replaced in the gasoline pool. So we have to use more gasoline to generate the same amount of energy in the mobility sector. Essentially a hidden price hike to acommodate ethanol blending. Blending hydrogen into the current natural gas system to cut GHG is similar - you're going to need more "gas" to generate the same amount of energy that was delivered before, which means a higher cost to consumers even if the headline price quoted for the blended gas is the same or lower.
@@Bucky1836 Lead was phased out awhile back; Ethanol was to replace MBTE, unfortunately the E10 blend gasoline has higher RVP so it actually increases VOC's and smog instead of the other way round. The company I worked for did the studies on the impact of moving to E10 for the EPA.
@@Bucky1836 As you probably know already changing the amount of alcohol in the blend and what you blend it with changes the properties of how it runs. Our studies were based on E10 since that was the max the EPA was assuming would be used in ordinary mogas. I know my car lost mileage; stations wouldn't be able to sell 100% gasoline at a higher price if customers were totally happy with E10.
And with higher GHG emission making the hydrogen from fossil gas. Making it with RE would e etc costly and inefficient use of RE. Charge BEVs with it instead.
Thank you Nate and Art! I've been sending this video, and others with Daniel S., to anyone and everyone. The meta crisis (energy depletion conundrum) is bleak, but we have to face it.
Glad I recently found your podcast on recommendation from a random youtube comment on some left-political channel. No one in that space can accept that the only "sustainable" energy comes from photosynthesis.
brilliant podcast nate . is this the Berman breach ? facts unfurl when concern is investigated. you guys are doing a deep drill, there's no shallow 'shale mary' here. cheers
I've been following news on energy for decades now and I never knew this was the reason why we import so much oil. I'm a big proponent of nuclear and believe that we need to diversify the energy economy. Peek oil is going to be a big problem because we've built up so much of our infrastructure around it. We should have never let the oil industry get such a stranglehold over our economy in the first place.
GDP cannot be used because it measures compensated activity. It does not discriminate between present economic compensation and debt compensation. Debt is based on presumed future profit.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most. No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores. No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it. This universal truth applies to all systems. Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Didn’t fully attend. Didn’t fully understand. It seemed to indicate that we are adaptable. That we can eke. It reminded me of how food in over-industrialized nations has become big on oily, sugary, salty, empty calories but low on vitamin and mineral nutrition. How, instead of people going out in the world to socialize, they spend time in the virtual/augmented world socializing. From “real” to “unreal”. It’s still being sociable but not as we’ve known it. Still doing a similar job. I’m probably fully in error with those analogies.
We facing Alot of issues in South Africa that have more to do with what this discussion than people are realising. The power company Eskom is a good case study right now.
This is describing the details of Bill Rees pessimism... No one is paying attention and they never will so we'll head over the cliff never understanding and only reacting...
Thank you, Nate and Art, for a great discussion. I have been looking at peak oil since I learned about it in 2009 in an Environmental Sociology class that I took. And, I, too, agree that people are debunking it and they're kicking the can down the road because of tar sands oil and fracking oil. My question is, as Art discovered, if only 60% of it is actual oil and the other 40% is stuff that we can't use to run our cars and trucks, wouldn't we have reached peak oil then and we're on the decline? Maybe I missed something. Does somebody want to clarify?
FANTASTIC dialogue, Nate and Arthur! My favorite quote from Arthur was, “Oil ain’t what it used to be.” Nate’s nice zinger was, “Renewable energy can power a great civilization, just not this one.” Please keep Arthur in your rotation, Nate, and thanks for fleshing out the prescient contributions of the late MK Hubbert. I didn’t know he advocated population control. He clearly understood Malthus.
Besides the fact that enough photons shower down each hour to power our civilisation for a year, we live on the surface of an untapped molten ball, add to that we are surrounded by renewable energy water and wind, Nate is not only a little bit wrong, he assumes our civilisation doesn't become more efficient in use and production, which it has been doing the whole time.
@@jamesgrover2005 All the energy sources you mentioned require infrastructure to be useful in an industrial civilization. Also, having a new cheap energy source would be a disaster for the already stressed wildlife habitats that do exist.
@@jamesgrover2005 We can't use diffuse energy for industrial needs; we require concentrated energy.
@@cynthiaquilici6793 the Large hadron collider at CERN, it's energy consumption is 1.3 TWh per year while the total electrical energy production in the world is around 20000 TWh.
That 1.3TWh is delivered by electricity, I'm not sure who has been telling you only oil can power industry, but they are lying to you.
All energy on this planet is derived from the sun, including your oil and gas.
@@jamesgrover2005 Show me the mines that run on electricity. Show me the excavators. Show me the transport. Show me how you make tires and asphalt out of electricity. That 1.3TWh, btw, is mainly provided by the *concentrated* and easily-transported energy embodied in gas, coal, and oil. We can only make use of *concentrated* (not diffuse) energy for the intense purposes our society currently requires. Did I forget to point out that it needs to be concentrated to do effective work at scale?
Art is such a treasure. I formerly worked as an amateur energy analyst and compiled data and graphs that illustrated what Art has been showing and little of what he has been saying surprises me. What surprises me is the magnitude has grown so much since I quit. I knew what factors he mentioned were in play but it is so much more now.He is a gold standard energy analyst and a national treasure and few people outside our little circle have ever heard of him!
I think that the reason few people understand or care about peak oil is that they truly believe renewables will save us and allow us to carry on as before. And the sooner we completely stop using oil, the better. The media all push this viewpoint. If they were right there would be no need to subsidise renewables and legislate against fossil fuels.
The other huge problem with "renewables" is the utter disrespect for all the natural landscapes they keep invading. Big Wind is visually the worst offender, and solar sprawl failed to take over rooftops and parking lots as it should have. See the Princeton Andlinger Net-Zero America 2050 map; a staggering amount of land and ocean is slated for development.
Discloser, I am a petroleum production expert with some decades experience on oil and gas industry and I am very familiar with developing conventional oil and gas reservoirs and unconventional shale and tight oil and gas reservoirs.
First, let me express my consideration for both experts bringing on public this video with subject energy from oil and gas and peak oil, an old subject but with fresh and more complete data and argument. The Geologist Arthur E. Berman is an incredible expert with deep and broad knowledge not only on petroleum geology but he for many decades show on publics on a clear way the challenges on oil and gas industry and give and solutions and directions.
I personally accept the theory of peak oil and Arthur E. Berman bring this subject very clear and support the peak oil with data and arguments. He include on arguments and technology role. And in fact all technologies applied on oil industry have postponed the peak oil as it is described. The world has proved the Peak discovery and for many decades the oil consumed has been higher than new discoveries and together with new technologies, the world has arrived to produce the oil and gas needed from economy. The price increased for oil and gas has played a great role on energy security, because the company profit is reinvested for keeping production on a high price environment.
Together new technologies and new discovered have postpone the peak oil and for at least one decade these has been on a plateau. Today oil and gas industry even on plateau, the production of water is very serious and problematic and existing technologies can not keep growing production of oil which limit and recoverable reserves which are estimated around 1.7 trillion barrels. This 1.7 trillion barrels if will be produced with rates the industry has today may keep production only for around 50 years and this with high risk. However the geology worldwide shows with certainty that global OOIP are more then 15 trillion barrels, and we have consumed only around 1.3 trillion and after 50 years the produced oil will be around 3 trillion barrel or only 20% of OOIP, and will live underground 80% of OOIP. On other side from many model and laboratory teste for oil recovery all displacement methods give very high oil recovery at least 60% or higher, and such values are reported on few cases. This I think is an argument that the world need technologies to increase oil recovery from all reservoirs and deal with injectant breakthrough which make technologies risky and with marginal effectivity. On unconventional oil reservoirs the oil remaining underground is up to 90% of OOIP, and there is no any EOR recognized for these reservoirs.
The good thing is that for oil and gas reservoirs private experts have effective technology to inject gas of any type and increase significantly oil production and achieve high oil recovery. These undisclosed technologies can increase oil from existing depleted oil reservoir by more than 3-5 trillion barrels (on addition to 3 trillion barrels). All what is needed for this is the government together with industry must partner with inventors of undisclosed technologies which can be adopted very easy with present technologies with minimum investments.
More information on these topics can be discussed only on private conversations on demand.
I have followed Arthur Burmans oil reports for thirty years it’s really nice to catch up with his analysis of what’s happening in the oil industry right now
i've been following peak oil academics since the ´08 thing . i'm beginning to think it all can be summed up as "we're so f%cked ! " .
@@jonas7510 I keep telling the young guys I work with in construction to buy a used old Honda that gets 40 mpg or better and just build a tiny house that’s well insulated and prepare for a life of scarcity. They all drive huge monster trucks and want the biggest house and a cabin on the lake to boot. I agree we have passed so many tipping points for our wasteful western lifestyles
@@jonas7510 …sooner or later…lol
@@sonnyeastham Drill baby drill!! Good thing they're melting.. it'll make it easier to get at all that sweet, sweet hydrocarbon 🤑
@@noahbrown4388 You got that right. lol
I first got interested in peak oil after reading Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency" when it was published almost 25 years ago. Since then, I followed The Oil Drum blog until it ended some yeas ago. After that, I followed Art Berman's presentations.
This presentation is an incredible update on peak oil and energy that you won't find anywhere else. At some point this type of information will be widely recognized.
Unfornately, I am very pessimistic about where this is going with the growing World population and the thurst for oil by China and other rapidly industrilizing countries.
If you add if Professor Mearsheimer's Neorealist geopolitical theory, the future of the World and humanity is very bleek.
You are really connecting the dots and the dots more than likely spell DOOM sooner or later. Enjoy it while you still can. lol
Agreed
Spot on !
@@paulwhetstone0473 I don't even care anymore. Let it all come tumbling down. Humanity deserves it.
I'm not certain it will be widely recognized. Capitalists are already trying to spin it in peak demand. The economy will contract because of an energy shortage and they will say the contraction is a demand issue.
They can always blame covid, Putin, left wingers, Greenpeace, China, ... I'm sure the capitalist think tanks are working on a script. Some story that works in their favour. And the media will sell it to the public at large.
Thank you Nate and Art, very important findings. It would be interesting to see slide 9 multiplied by slide 11, that is the barrels-of-oil-and-equivalents, multiplied by the BTUs for each type of product. I suspect this would show the "bombshell" finding that we're way past peak-BTUs. As you point out, it's the BTUs that matter. Then as a follow-on, you might look at "surplus BTUs", i.e. net of the energy cost to extract, refine, and deliver to the point of use, which we know that cost has been rising. That would highlight the double -whammy.
Interesting viewpoint!
Good points.
BTU and surplus BTU charts would be amazing to see - completely agree. Hope to see those next time!
If people like this find themselves not taking the ultimate in eco-choice choices, then how do we convince the other 7bn, who just want to prevent their kids from starving and perhaps get a nice gold watch to do it?
We compete to consume and consume to compete.
And we compete to survive.
At 47 minutes Arthur says people are paid to know this, I know, I know, the cheque is in the mail. About 48:40 Nate was spitting the truth, a super organism with no one at the wheel. Thank you both very much Arthur and Nate, it's amazing the amount you can learn from just eavesdropping on podcasts. Peace
I can't believe people, especially our politicians, don't know this. I have known this for 6 years and I'm just a hillbilly who spent a couple years reading the EIA website. All this info is there. We were Never energy independent!!
Valero and another independent refinery can refine light sweet. Major refineries could be retrofitted to refine our light sweet with some investment. Instead they export it for higher arbitrage.
Merci beaucoup Nate and Art
Aupa! Nate and Arthur, I follow you since years from Spain.
Thank you very much indeed for sharing your scientific knowledge, data and analysis with us and even more, for sharing what you decript from scientific and official statistics data, that unfortunately seems not to be seen by many people and by our rulers.
Nate, there is a physicist and mathematician called Antonio Turiel. He is Spanish and can speak English aswell. He works for The Institut de Ciènces del Mar as a physicist specializing in remote sensing, turbulence, sea surface salinity, sea surface temperature, water cycle, sea surface currents and chorophyll concentration.
Antonio Turiel conducts a blog since about fifteen years (15): The Oil Crash.
He has presented his analysis to the Spanish Senate, the Catalán Congress, the Parliament of La Rioja, several TV Interviews in different contries and about 2 or 3 prasentations a month talking about peak oil and energy in general. It would be interesting you interviewing him. All the best from Huelva, Spain.
I wonder why the network of national ASPO organisations broke down. Which ones are still left? In Germany there is a small bunch of people still discussing the topic and trying to keep the fire alive.
I think a good summary is for people to take away is that the net BTU from fossil fuels is decreasing from multiple factors. Due to lower oil quality and increased drilling difficulty, it has already peaked. And, it is only going down from here. Every major discovery is just a blip that prolongs the inevitable by a year or few.
Art is my favorite guest!
Nate ! The last two interviews have been the most important. Congratulations on these excellent and pressing discussions.
Now, what if you asked Art B. to plot world production in BTU Content instead of the conventional total liquids? It bet it would show a clear Peak and a descending trend. I fear we may already be on the irreversible downward slide. Hence the beginnings of the great simplification. What I call the "Fluff Crash".
If you use energy metrics (BTU, joules, kilocalories, etc.) instead of volume, the energy used continues to rise. This is because of increasing population, even as per capita use declines. This is the same observation as GDP increasing, even as per capita GDP declines. The culprit is overpopulation. BTW, even though people like Peter Zeihan predict China's crash, their ability to adapt quickly means that their current declining net population gives them an advantage in their domestic economy, which will soon support their international trade. In the coming years, US net population increase will drive the economy down, contrary to the economists.
I was also thinking that using BTU/energy content instead of BPOE would be interesting, and may show the peak more clearly. It's the energy content that does the work.
@@wvhaugenDon't worry, the 5 million illegal aliens are going keep that useless GDP number ticking up.
@@wvhaugen Agreed, population increase is only useful if there is enough energy for the new people.
Enormous demonstrations in Paris today about Macron slightly increasing the age of eligibility for the Age Pension. It reminded me of the big ‘Yellow Vest’ demonstrations there a while back against increased oil prices. I can’t imagine how people will cope in the future when oil is super expensive and in very short supply, with strict rationing. People will be having mental breakdowns when they realise that it’s a permanent thing and the end of so much that we have taken for granted in our modern lifestyles.
Thats why projects like Cop City (in Atlanta) are being built. They are preparing for mass and sustained civil unrest.
There's quite a bit of oil bearing shale formations in Europe. Back in the early 2010s, fracking companies weren't allowed in coz of environmental concerns and Putin was providing oil and gas on a big scale, convincing Germany to build a second pipeline to get around Ukraine.
After the Russians invaded, things turned around completely and Germany - with Green Party in govt consent - got back into digging up coal and lignite.
With dangers of energy rebellion like the yellow vest, Europe now may be much more open to allow fracking. Next winter, existing reserves from old Russian import be used up, and them fracker cowboys could go try their luck with Macron Scholz and them Polish guys.
Especially when people see that the rationing does not apply to the elite. The will continue to fly around in their private jets, but will lecture us on how we should live.
That's not going to happen. We will transition to an oil-free transportation system. It may get a little messy, but it's not going to be a disaster.
@@incognitotorpedo42 lol no we won’t
Excellent interview, Nate! It is bizarre that our national politics hates reality and prefers fantasy maintained by fraud and lies.
Except some of the chief peak oil doomers run on fraud and lies themselves. EG: Simon Michaux - the 'we're running out of metals' guy - is a chief liar himself. He argues we need 4 weeks of metal batteries. Why no pumped hydro? He claims there are difficulties finding enough sites. Really? His 1000 page PDF doesn't reference a source - but he shares it here. ruclips.net/video/LBw2OVWdWIQ/видео.html
Get this. Michaux cherry-picked a PHES viability study about SINGAPORE! I laughed out loud when I heard him admit that. Their highest hill is only 15 metres. Gee - I wonder why they had trouble finding enough sites!? I call this dumb trick “Painting the world Singapore.” But instead pumped hydro is most economic where there are actually hills. Imagine that? If you triple the 'head', you halve the cost. Professor Andrew Blakers presents the REAL story. Most countries have 100 times the sites they need. If they don't, a neighbour does. ruclips.net/video/_Lk3elu3zf4/видео.html They have identified the 616,000 best sites around the world. re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/ So one of the MAIN arguments against renewables and EV's just vanishes with this ONE fact - Michaux lied about pumped hydro. There are other MANY lies from this man - but my point is this ONE extreme example of cherrypicking shows what an outright liar this chief doomer is. And he convinced Chris Martenson to promote his rubbish!
Hey Nate sir, you have three lamps burning away behind you, for at best, decorative value. Try and shut two off .. that way you save 40% or more face-blue-smilingface-fuchsia-tongue-out
Civlization is a heat engine. Totally hooked on energy like a junkie to heroine. No matter what these privileged white men speak of or perhaps do, peak oil or peak solar,
the devastation of the planet will go, till the whole system collapses. Not like some stupid Hollytrash movie, but rather like any large unstable violent empire crumbles.
Now it's our global folly, this ugly civilization that's next !! Count your own emissions first instead of sermonizing like everyone else is
The visible body politic is really covering a sinfle interest:that of squeezing money out of poor folk or mid f9lk and giving it to Crapitalist Overlords.
Oh my...so we're using farm equipment that runs on diesel made from imported oil to grow corn to make ethanol that has less energy than diesel or gasoline to add to gasoline. Doesn't seem sustainable much.
Listening to Nate and Art Berman talk about Peak Oil is my happy place :) Love the Hubbert prize idea.
Excellent video. I don't know but it seems to me that peak EROEI could be a better metric than peak oil, for as Arthur said, "oil aint what it used to be." Thanks for your work here.
I'm not the most informed on that, but I think peak EROI was at the beginning of the oil-age when all we had to do was basically stick a straw in the ground 🤷🏻♂️
Two of my favorite energy guys. Been listening to Art since The Oil Drum days.
Yes great conversation. I have one correction: it's muchas gracias, not muchos. If everyone had a smile like Art the world would be a better place. Seems like all anyone really needs to know is that 'one half of all the oil ever used has been used since 1995.'
Thank you for this conversation, which was both highly informative and eminently understandable to a layperson with no particular experience with energy issues.
Thank you Nate !! The final question is when our civilization is going to admit that sooner or later we are at the beginning of a new era ? Oil has permitted to frame a world that will disappear with its end ! We are not preparing ourselves for this new world without oil !
What you need to be asking is how quickly will we move to a world where oil is not a necessity.
The answer is soon.
@@bobwallace9753 The answer is soon ! Yes you are perfectly right. The other question is : what will be the collateral damages we will have to support in this transition ? We can imagine we will have to face many social troubles and violence, because we are not doing nothing now to prepare ourselves for the reduction of the economy.
@@alfredmacleod8951
We're not likely to suffer any damage to our economy overall. What we are on route to is cheaper energy and less expensive transportation. And that means a decrease in producing food and goods.
There will be some localized economic disruption which is already happening. The coal industry has already been cut in more than half. The oil industry will shrivel. Unfortunately our US car manufacturers have waited too long to build up their EV products and will be lucky to avoid bankruptcy.
In addition to lower costs for energy, transportation, food, and goods we will start saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year on health costs due to fossil fuel pollution.
And there's a larger benefit that is likely to be immense. Make a list of wars starting with WWII and then look at the number which were about or partially about oil. Think about what we spend "defending" our oil supply. As countries become energy self-sufficient we'll see an end to resource wars.
@@bobwallace9753 Hi
I don't understand how we can go toward less expensive transportation. Please, can you go a little deeper. Thanks.
@@alfredmacleod8951
The first step is simply moving to EVs. EVs have now pretty much reached manufacturing price parity and should soon cost less to manufacture. A better car for less money. And significantly less cost to operate. Plus much longer useful lives.
It looks like we're going to have moderate distance passenger planes running on batteries within the next couple of years. That will save money on both fuel and maintenance,
The real kicker will be robotaxis. Tesla has stated that they can operate a robotaxi service, all costs included, for less than $0.18/mile. Even if they doubled the cost and made a 50% profit that would be cheaper than one could operate their own car.
Plus there are external cost savings. Less money spent on treating health problems resulting from fossil fuel pollution. And less spent on oil wars.
Yahoo for plain speaking science. Finally someone who says it as it is with no spin. Thank you Art you have my respect.
Just listened to a talk given by Charlie Hall on the Canadian club of Rome yt channel. Much of what he says chimes in with Arts analysis. He doesn't pull his punches saying that the reserve estimates of oil industry, Opec, IEA , etc have been long falsified.
been hearing his forever now !!!
This has been a "thing" for awhile now, but it's difficult to explain to a wide audience that "oil" and "gas" are basically a pile of molecules, not a single product. The molecule mix has changed, and without doing a true 3 stream estimate of the hydrocarbons you have (oil, gas, NGLs) it's difficult to really know the value of the production you actually have.
New to site, so I've got to add some context, as I've been a peak oiler since 1976. Nate and Arthur do a nice job, but they come off a bit deflated by the rise in oil output since the "peak" was called. But then, they give the data to prove the peak was hit (NGL's and low EROEI matter)! Here is the thing for people new to this debate. ONSHORE CONVENTIONAL OIL HAS PEAKED! All the really important 150 or so conventional fields (Ghawar, Burgan, Ahvaz, Cantarell, Prudhoe Bay, etc) that have provided for society over the last 60 years, and were mostly found before 1975, have all (mostly) peaked. Mighty Ghawar (70 Billion PR) went from 5 Mbbls/d to 3.5Mbbls/d (per Aramco's S1); Prudhoe Bay (12 Billion PR) went from 1.5Mbbls/d to its current 350K. And the U.S as a whole dropped from around 9 Mbbls/d in the early 70's to under 6 Mbbls/d before the fracking revolution (that 6 Mbbls/d included about 1.5 Mbbls/d of offshore output). And NO, there are no more major onshore fields to be found in the world (Ghawar is 23 miles x 125 miles; you don't miss a major onshore field). So, do all conventional oil fields reach a peak production output that can never be reach again? Yes. Is the peak oil that Hubbert imagine valid, pre "crazy" , low EROEI oil production (I'm looking at you shale, tar sands, ultra deep water)? Yes. Do peak oil'ers have to cower in the corner at dinner parties? NO! The science is there, the data is there. And this NGL discussion, which I've been talking about with my investment group for years, just puts another feather in our tin foil caps. Perk up Nate and Arthur, you were correct all along!
While NGLs can be used as a refinery feedstock to manufacture diesel and gasoline, the primary component of NGLs; ethane and it's derivative ethylene is pretty useless for refining. But propane and butane along with their derivatives propylene and butylene are already seeing use for this purpose, so we can expect NGLs to somewhat substitute conventional oilwell production plateaus (and declines) at least temporarily.
But that's a stopgap solution, already we know that unconventional plays deplete at much faster rates than their conventional counterparts and that they too are on pace to plateau sometime this decade in North America. So barring some monumental leaps in refrack-ing technology, the Shale boom is officially over and world "oil" production is going to peak sometime this or the next decade.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. I worked for Kern County in the 1990s when oil production was depressed due to low prices. Oil had dropped to less than $20/barrel and it cost about $20 to pump the heavy crude due to the need for steam injection. This led to oil being left in the ground and a big reduction in County tax revenue. The point is that basic economics kick in when cost exceeds price and production stops. When oil prices increased, production resumed and technology like diagonal drilling extended the life of the oilfield. If the price gets too high, users cut use or substitute a less costly fuel. Hence, more Toyota Prius and EV sales are occurring at current relatively high fuel prices. My understanding is that EV life cycle emissions including mining and battery production provide a net reduction in a few years with California grid emission rates. I have home solar installed, so most of my charging is zero emission. My Audi Etron has a range of about 210 miles. It averages 2.5 miles per kWh and charges in about 30 minutes on high speed chargers used on long trips. If you home charge using off peak grid power at about 25 cents/kWh without solar, it costs about 10 cents/mile. A 25 mpg SUV using $4.00/gallon gasoline costs about 16 cents/mile. Smaller EVs are more fuel efficient than the heavier SUV EVs so, they would likely beat small IC engine cars. EV costs and solar panel costs are expected to continue declining while petroleum will likely cost more as production declines like you discussed in your talk. This will provide even more incentive to move to EVs for light duty vehicle travel. Elon Musk claims that his electric semi will be able to compete with diesel, so if true, even heavy vehicles could some day move away from diesel. If the EVs perform the same work as petroleum fueled vehicles at a similar price, there would be no change to lifestyle or to the economy. My last point is that a good quality of life does not require endless GDP growth. Most of the things we buy provide a quick adrenaline rush and then get relegated to the storage shed or trash can. People may find out that they enjoy walking and bicycling and are more healthy in the long run.
Interesting. Did you account for battery lifecycle cost with your car? Probably around $0.10/mile for a car getting 2.5 mile/kWh.
Yes. You are on the crest of the wave. The message of this podcast is that what you are doing is now going to be forced onto everyone and everything. We are going to have to change drastically and that always means investment. The bigger more interesting question is the coincidental data conclusion that the US had reached peak oil (all things considered) immediately before covid. 🤔
This subject goes hand in hand with the video Cheap Peak Oil. I stayed with relatives in Italy that had a new car running on propane/gasoline, this took advantage of a newer propane pipeline from Algeria. Propane was 1/3 or 1/2 price of gasoline. The family called the old gasoline only tiny car the fuel hog! These two videos and my experience in Italy help me understand driving our cars will slowly get more expensive.
Pretty good bit by NH and AB. I think that they kind of skipped over the concept of net energy. IOW, not only do the products we call “oil” have less of an energy content, but it takes more energy to get at them. Also, there is something that I call the “energy trap”. This is the idea that “renewables” are really just “replaceables”, and, you need “oil” in order to replace them. Never mind the fact that all they can produce is electricity. Of course, there is only so much that can be discussed in the course of an hour.
Personally, I think that various forms of demand destruction will continue for the forseeable future. You see this in the form of various countries and regions that are effectively dropping out (Being forced out ?) of the oil economy, eg, Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, etc… I expect this process to continue, and accelerate.
I think that when the UK gets pushed out of the world oil economy, things might get interesting. To what extent will the USA be willing and able to support the UK? That kind of thing. As always, time will tell.
You interview Art better than anyone else. Great listening to this one and the previous one on Diesel. Thank you!
Just great . It is just soooo much the psychology of the animal we have to tap into…..But , well you know , I’m sure that really is a slow process.
Great to see you guys doing another podcast! 💯
Nate and Arthur, I am so pleased to rejoin such an informed discussion of Peak Oil. Back in the 90s I found the oil drum and die-off websites and I found the authoritative papers and presentations to be in direct alignment with my own investigations and research. I’m concerned with the impacts of Peak Oil on global food supply. As the inventor of SolaRoof technology I have a unique understanding of the coming collapse of the petrochemical based production of grain that accounts for about 70% of global food supply. I wrote a paper on this subject in 2013 called “closing the hunger gap” and I would be grateful to have your feedback. It presents a dire situation and I projected about 20 years to global catastrophe and we are now half way there. It’s clear from the graphic presentation that we are on track to overshoot and then global famine. Not that I am without hope - I have presented how food innovation, with my SolaRoof inventions as catalyst for change - has a very good chance to avert the worst case sceneries. I’m very happy to report that we may be on the threshold of widespread adoption of SolaRoof innovations in 2023 - but it would accelerate action if programs like yours would give a hearing to this subject of food crisis. The consequences of the ignorance surrounding the food system and it’s impacts on global ecosystems will be greater than, and felt sooner than Climate Change - the food crisis must be understood in the context of the energy crisis that you are documenting and also a global fresh water crisis. The solution is SolaRoof technology and nothing else comes close. I would be happy to explain and answer your questions!
drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Uy-_RYsKzyTXlCa0lpSDc3YTd4TmJPQWJDVi1zVkFxTXcw/view?usp=drivesdk&resourcekey=0-wecLfTs-l6AGyDnrjVQzfw
wauw! enjoyed it very much, truly one of the better podcasts or talks on peak oil. highly recommended.
Very excellent video. Thank you both!
Interesting thesis. Basically as we need to drill in deeper less accessible locations for oil we get less of the most valuable component (diesel) and more of the less valuable components (natural gas liquids).
Excellent discussion. I have been expecting Peak Oil to be back in the news but now I know why it is not: TPTB have 'debunked' it. Most people are ignoring what is happening with energy and don't see the depopulation solution that TPTB have settled on either.
For years, I've been hearing about "artificially low interest rates".. but aren't *negative* interest rates the rational response to a material de-growth scenario? One can't promise 10% a year from now, if there isn't going to be 10% more in real stuff to distribute back. The only reason rates were at 0-1% is because the system isn't set up for negative rates (for the most part), and we're only seeing the real rates (which are negative) via inflation. Maybe this could enter into a future discussion, because I see a lot of confusion on this front.
There’s degrowth in many sectors already. With improving environmental possibilities. EVs. Especially in China. Powered by renewables. See Tony Seba and his S curves.
Please, say it ain’t so! I’m too old to die young 😭
Thanks so much guys! Very informative. Art is one of my favorite guests that you’ve had on Nate. Looking forward to more conversations between you two in the future :)
@Sunshine Cloudyday True. The loss of soil nutrients, which I'm sure has greatly contributed to the general decrease in wellbeing, both physically and mentally. We have literally been eating hydrocarbon products since the haber-bosch process was discovered
Why am I not surprised? Net energy available to do work is in decline. Full stop.
"a climate change activist" would say...we have (and use) too much. Nate, I wouldn't expect that added characterization by someone like you. I would think that you would agree with nearly every reputable climate scientist, that were burning too much oil.
Running outta everything and can't stop our easy lifestyles. Yachts and have-nots extreme.The party is OVER.❤️❤️🌎❤️❤️
Last person out, turn off the lights please :)
That must be why I've been listening to Missing Foundation again after 35 years.
Hello Nate. Some of the past guests on your show have speculated about artificial intelligence transforming the world to no longer require physical work from people, and that we can have much more human labor devoted into things like education. Yet you and some of your other guests have said that the reality is that as oil and other natural resources deplete and resulting consequences unfold, we will need more poeple working on farms and other essential jobs, not less. Do you believe that the biophysical bottlenecks of the 21st century will constrain this vision of having more labor into education and other human-centered fields, or will the bottlenecks be primary sociopolitical and cultural, or some of both?
This is a very complicated question and I am leaving for airport shortly. I promise to address it on a 'Frankly' or podcast later this year. The short answer is this: AI uses a lot of energy to build and create (less so to implement once built) - so in itself its not a huge energy hog. Yes, AI will displace human labor needs on some/many current jobs - (but it won't displace the people! so there is a wealth/income inequality issue). But more broadly, AI does NOT dematerialize our economy - UNLESS accompanied by vastly different cultural aspirations and social arrangements. To me AI is merely another can to kick squeezing a bit more productivity out of system at a cost of greater concentration of wealth/power and higher environmental damage. To your later point/question - I DO think we will direct more labor into education and other human centered fields but that will be by necessity not by AI. All of the fancy tech proclamations about the future have occurred in a unique period of continual annual increases in global energy use - so we imagine that will always be the case. What technology - even AI - will do for us - in a period of declining energy availability (and the global nation state response to that) is unkown. Bottom line: AI at best is new form of productivity boost, not a way to reduce energy/material needs - unless paired with new economic paradigm at same time.
@@thegreatsimplification hello Larry and Nate - "Vastly different cultural and social arrangements" is exactly what "the great simplification" means. It's going to happen, like it or not. There are already "islands of coherence" - Cuba during their "special period" was one, and permaculture continues to create such islands Culturally, New Zealand's rural maraes are another, where traditionally "work" was not defined as such, but was part of societies that were self-sufficient not so very long ago, yet which valued trade very highly. The world has much to learn from indigenous cultures - Vandana Shiva told us that in one of your podcasts. But there is also much to learn from scientific research into efficient use of solar energy, including efficient combustion of green wood (which cannot be funded in New Zealand due to wholesale capture by the energy monopolies). I agree that "appropriate technology" will do much to reduce onerous labour.
If we cut back on the livestock production and dairy industries there would vast tracts of land annually for bio fuel production. And rewilding for drawdown and ecosystem revitalisation. PV to hydrogen farming implements is potentially a strong candidate for green H₂ unlike almost every H₂ pitch and hype you come across. Hydrogen won’t be the price of diesel any time soon or before we need to be NZE (yesterday really but 2050 according to IPCC), but with carbon credits for on farm reforestation it could be.
Over half our crops are produced to feed livestock too. Half of global shipping is for fossil fuels. Half the oil we burn is to explore for , extract, process and transport FFs. Not denying peak oil has been passed in some ways. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing changed everything but that doesn’t mean booked reserves are not matching consumption any more and the oil is getting more expensive to extract and locate. But when we electrolyse everything as a fuel switching strategy we only need to replace 1/3 of the energy of FFs bc of the rejected energy (heat waste from friction, combustion gases etc) being 2/3 of the numbers often quoted for energy use from FFs.
@@bashful228doesn't hydrogen have the lowest energy density tho? Are talking about water hydrolysis to make H? Could be a burden on our fresh water supply.
Thanks for the wonderful podcast. I have a question that's been in my mind after watching your podcasts. In your view of likely scenarios in the future to plan for, you've said that we will need more physical human labor inputs into maintaining basic human needs as the Great Simplification starts to unravel. Yet others that you've talked to, such as Daniel Schmactenberger, posit that AI and robotic automation will lessen the need for human labor and free up humans to do other things such as invest into education (Schmactenberger says this in this podcast ruclips.net/video/fowcm7b8Dlw/видео.html at 2:26:43). How do you reconcile this?
Sarah Lipman: Great question.
I think the big argument is that AI and robotic automation is energy/resource blind. Automation is something that looks good on paper but is messy in action. Anything more less than 120/240v at 50/60Hz power and these things completely stop. Human power has about 10,000 different food inputs that can be used - that diversity is a huge advantage.
Without cheap energy, robotics and AI fall apart. The most efficient engine we have is the human body. It is better than either oxen or horses. That is why the future is like the past, with manual labor assuming greater importance. Vaclav Smil dismisses robotics because of their energy demands and the need for humans to organize the raw material acquisition. I make the efficiency argument for human labor in my first book, if you care to read it. The Laws of Physics Are On My Side, 2013.
"Peak diesel" might be a more insightful way to look at the issue, as it's the most value generating and non discretionary of oil constituents.
Nate, I often listen to your podcasts several times in order to fully understand what the message is. Do you ever come to Canada to give lectures? I'm a former geoscientist now energy worker who is absolutely fascinated in your overall thesis.
Thank you Arthur Berman and Nate Hagens. I teach middle school science. Our 8th grade curriculum requires teaching a unit on energy. This discussion clears up questions I have had about the differences between oil, petroleum and natural gas.
I teach 8th grade as well. The kids think solar and wind will solve climate change. They don't know that we need oil for solar panels and wind turbines.😂😂
Thanks, Nate and Art for this clear view!
Those graphs of Art do give us the surprising facts behind the trade..
It also shows us: the problem is in the 'needs' we have.
If we would 'need' more wooden tables, there wouldn't be a precious tree still standing in all the protected forests in the World.
It does not matter what kind of regulation you create to prevent this from happening, there will always be a method for the 'gain' to succeed.
We simply have to STOP saying ' I need'..for ourselves.
This could be a SUV, sneakers or a hamburger, it does not matter what.
We ARE the creator of this, as We Are This World.
Thanks again, let's move on!
Excellent
I wonder what a production curve chart would look like of simply just global diesel and gasoline production alone since those 2 are the main components that drive our economy... no pun intended. Have we reached peak diesel+gasoline production worldwide?
Look up refinery runs
You're absolutely right guys, there will come a reckoning.
Didn't mention forcibly reducing Russian oil exports. Touches on recession while quantitative tightening is in effect.
@@sonnyeastham Can you explain what you think the "peak oil concept" is? To me Peak Oil is "oil production rates reaching a peak and declining due to oil being a finite resource".
Listening for the second time in a day. Our grandchildren (if there are any) will curse us.. and rightfully so
FTR, Hubbert noted all the tight shale in his assessment but there wasn't an economic way to access that oil (and gas) in his day. It wasn't until geosteerable drilling (developed offshore Louisiana in the 1990's) combined with the post WWII technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing making horizontal drilling accurate enough to target the tight shale plays. Let's not forget the importance of very heavy and heavy crude oil. Syncrude from very heavy oil was begun during WWII in Canada. Very heavy crude is great for refineries with coking capacity and petcoke went from something sold as a byproduct of squeezing the last bit of gases (afterwards changed into diesel and gasoline) from the bottom of the barrel into a profit center in the early/mid 1980's. These dudes don't seem to get that crude oil is not just fractionated into gasoline, diesel, kerosene and heavier products but the entrained gases as well as the gases developed by cat crackers are rearranged into "octane" This has been going on since before WWII.
I see little understanding of the refining processes between these two fellows
1:02:30
Peak oil is not “just a theory” or “a simple observation”. It is a consequence of Rolle’s Theorem (math, calculus, published around 1690). Note: Theorem is a mathematically proven (or provable) statement. Always true, no exceptions.
Rolle’s Theorem states that if a function f has the same value at two points (f(a)=f(b), a
So the energy value per barrel crude is worth 20 percent less compared to 20 years ago, and the pre-2000 fields are gradually producing less per year, starting today at 6% per year?
For some reason this frightened me more than the usual basket of worries. There's a certain finality to Peak Oil. Once the fossil fuels are gone, we will not have the ability to mine for anything we need to get around them so we need top people working on this like yesterday.
Simplification day! Yay!
Hi Nate. I am very glad to have run into your work again. I also remember those TOD days and I agree the story is far more nuanced. At the time I did a Masters degree in Sustainability, but its energy component was disappointing so I began looking for a pHd that covered the nexus between energy and economics. I never did find that, but I do agree with you. The story is very complex, but definitely is far more nuanced than all those discussions back in TOD days. My own take on it is that the global economy can accept a price up to around $100. Over that; and the economy attenuates to manage price, but how it does that depends on a myriad of factors at various levels: country, taxation, distance, oil % in the economy and energy mix etc. Another important factor that has recently crossed my radar is demographics. China's population will halve in the next 30 years and other countries that also have significant demographic problems will also experience declines. In fact China's population peaked either in 2021 or 2022. This issue will also have a massive impact on our economies and energy flows. We live in interesting times! (Nod to Confucius)
You stated 10% of energy is used for energy production ..
Q .. is this 10% of world energy use..
Can you clarify this statement please
Great program Nate. Always good to hear from, Arthur Berman on these complex topics...
Nuclear... not solar and wind or burning food (ethanol), is the best answer
Great discussion! Just curious about Art's last point that renewables may help with electricity, but that's the easiest part of the problem. I would like to know what the hard parts of the problem are. Really enjoyed this one!
I was wondering the same. Maybe he was referring to politics and societal values.
@@paulwhetstone0473 Could be the values. Could also be modern manufacturing, whose processes require heat only possible (including affordable) with the high energy density of fossil fuels.
In the video "Art Berman- The Real Energy Paradigm" (uploaded to RUclips on Sept. 17, 2022), Berman says that electric power generation accounts for only 18% of world energy consumption, and that 82% of world energy is put to other uses. I guess ground, air, and sea transportation would be one of these, as well as industry and construction (including cement and steel production), and non-electric heating.
Transport. Heavy and medium, agriculture.mining refining metals, where high temps and reducing fuels are required,, replacing diesel..that's 75% of energy we use..there's a start..
@@thurstonhowellthetwelf3220 It was recently found that, if current data storage trends continue, within one or two centuries the amount of energy that will be required to maintain all of the world's computer data will exceed the amount of available energy of all types on the earth.
Art is the best of your guests. Kris De Decker was also another excellent guest. Thanks
The point Art makes and Nate backs up at 1:06:15 is everything. It is the predicament, in a nutshell. Few people seem to understand that we don't have the technology to continue powering civilization as we know it when fossil energy goes away. And thank goodness! I hope we never find a substitute for oil. If we do, we're toast (if we're not already).
i have read all your comments i cant believe you fall for the lies these people tell you. You are a narciistic woman and these sustainability people want to bring communism wake up
Brilliant discussion / presentation. Great Simplification website is also exemplary in the way Nate has so rigorously detailed and notes all the facts and data Art Berman has so thoroughly researched and presented. I like your equilibrium Art - frankly I think the future is terrifying, given how, as you pointed out, so few are aware of the facts and how most others just don’t seem to care either way. How is it possible, when the world finally wakes up to this reality, to avoid a major world war over who gets to use the remaining available economically-feasible resources given the trajectory? 27% of all oil consumed in human history was consumed in the last 22 years? (I hope I got that right from memory). That means current so-called civilization expiry date is not that far away. Renewable energy has already been exposed for the hoax it is; albeit if renewable technology and available resources were able to deliver on the pipe-dreams then all would be just fine.
What is in desperate need of renewing are the brains and mindsets of people, especially those passing themselves off as our leaders in government and industry. A great awakening is coming and it will not be pleasant.
A kilowatt is a kilowatt. It doesn't matter whether it comes from renewables or fossil. Renewables are not a "hoax". They are now the majority of new electric capacity.
So it sounds like a shifting definition of "oil". Oil is almost the basis of currency. Almost like a gold standard. Oil is traded in Dollars and arguably helps prop up the dollar. If "oil" no longer actually means oil, it's like an accounting trick to make "oil" into its own FIAT currency basing it's value on expectations rather than reality. So we have the Dollar (a FIAT) propped up by "oil" which is ow also a FIAT?
Am I really messing that up?
OK, snob Canadian physicist here: 1 mmBTU is 1.06 GJ and 1 m^3 is 6.29 barrels. So the energy density of crude oil is 1.06 GJ/0.159 m^3 = 6.7 GJ/m^3 or 6.7 MJ/L . Bonjour du Québec! Continuez votre beau travail! Addendum: where is Gail Tverberg? have any of you had some discussion with her? (I'm new to this channel..)
Final comment. A good podcast and worth watching. Berman's final point that renewables are only good for electricity production and that is but a fraction of our energy use was probably the most salient point.
Not to mention, "renewables" require fossil fuels in their production.
Arthur is so good at explaining things in the way a layman (like me) can understand!
The video is an excellent presentation. Hubbert's main premise was that all mega-reservoirs had already been discovered, and all were already in decline. That has proven true. What he underestimated was the new technologies that would make EOR and other "oil" available. This is why no one can forecast end dates, even today. The conclusion is the same as it was 30 years ago - we will eventually run out of oil, and as of now, there are no substitutes. Draw conclusions based on those facts.
Personally, being in Pennsylvania, I knew we reached peak when they fracked us. Why else would they use such an expensive process if the cheap stuff was still around??
Art is so lovely and a real treasure.
Thank you. As a Chemist, I found this fascinating.
Great interview of the great Art Berman. Superb.
interesting stuff here...another great video
Thanks for the interview.
Very informative and solid.
When you put E85 (85% ethanol) in a Flex Fuel vehicle, the mileage goes down drastically on the range computer. E85 is not cheap enuf to make it a good deal.
I saw that around '08 or '10 with my first prius. Same with the second too. And here's a tip - those fuel perks from grocery stores are a bunch of hooey. They sell you crappy gas at that perk discount, but you burn more, so no to little $$ savings. Its all a money grab, unfortunately, a shell game.
Art is just art :)
Well said.
never can listen to Arthur enough
Three major crises are upon us, debt, global warming and energy depletion all impacting within a decade or two.
Great discussion. I learned a lot. Thank you, Nate and Arthur.
Talking of hydrocarbon’s use as a single category: “energy production” is a bit like talking about gold’s use as a single category: “money”.
Both gold and hydrocarbons are used for other purposes: hydrocarbons for baggies and diapers, gold for jewelry and circuit boards. Grading the final use as an indicator of the efficiency of the energy density of the specific hydrocarbon is both specious and a fool’s errand.
Let the market decide the utility of baggies in terms of their market price. Clearly companies that produce baggies will stop producing them when their price drops to the marginal cost of production.
On an aside, Hubbard’s thought of using “energy certificates” and the past and present use of gold as a store of value are parallel in that the base products yield derivatives (jewelry, baggies, etc) that reduce the efficiency of their respective “mining” operations.
On the other hand, the energy input to mining bitcoin yields no derivatives. It is as efficiently produced a store of value as has ever been.
It’s not paradoxical that bitcoin miners are moving closer and closer to producing bitcoin using raw energy sources and not the derivatives of electrical service providers. Why pay $0.02 per kW-hr to the local electricity service provider when you can capture inexpensive, flared natural gas gas, pass it through a gas turbine, produce 220/110vac, 50/60 Hz power from that turbine and run your own bitcoin mines? The result is electricity costs of less than $0.01 per kW-hr - and no reliance on the volatile costs of large electricity SPs.
The market will adapt to “peak” hydrocarbons even in the face of government regulations that produce an energy price forcing function that eliminates (or reduces) hydrocarbon consumption before its time.
Good discussion. Perhaps we should start focusing on peak diesel?
We can survive without automobiles, airplanes and plastic bags, but not without diesel for trucks, trains, ships, tractors, and combines.
I don't know that plastics aren't vital. Plastic bags is kind of dismissive given the range of key critical items made of plastic (including much of the trucks, trains, ships, tractors, and combines).
Congrats, so clear!
I think the optimistic sesgo and confirmative sesgo get us blind , and one try to talk about this the other people say "Tecnoology save this problem" don`t worry about that. For me it is very frustrating, then and I remember a quote from Mark Twain.
'It's Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled'?
the best for you
To build on the energy density comment, ethanol has a lower BTU content than the material it replaced in the gasoline pool. So we have to use more gasoline to generate the same amount of energy in the mobility sector. Essentially a hidden price hike to acommodate ethanol blending. Blending hydrogen into the current natural gas system to cut GHG is similar - you're going to need more "gas" to generate the same amount of energy that was delivered before, which means a higher cost to consumers even if the headline price quoted for the blended gas is the same or lower.
Do you know why they add Ethanol to gas....to replace MBTE and Leaded gas for anti knock
Im running a 98 chevy v8 on 50 percent alcohol ...i lost 1 mpg 😴
@@Bucky1836 Lead was phased out awhile back; Ethanol was to replace MBTE, unfortunately the E10 blend gasoline has higher RVP so it actually increases VOC's and smog instead of the other way round. The company I worked for did the studies on the impact of moving to E10 for the EPA.
@@Bucky1836 As you probably know already changing the amount of alcohol in the blend and what you blend it with changes the properties of how it runs. Our studies were based on E10 since that was the max the EPA was assuming would be used in ordinary mogas. I know my car lost mileage; stations wouldn't be able to sell 100% gasoline at a higher price if customers were totally happy with E10.
And with higher GHG emission making the hydrogen from fossil gas. Making it with RE would e etc costly and inefficient use of RE. Charge BEVs with it instead.
Thank you Nate and Art!
I've been sending this video, and others with Daniel S., to anyone and everyone.
The meta crisis (energy depletion conundrum) is bleak, but we have to face it.
Muchas gracias Senor Petroleo!
Glad I recently found your podcast on recommendation from a random youtube comment on some left-political channel. No one in that space can accept that the only "sustainable" energy comes from photosynthesis.
brilliant podcast nate . is this the Berman breach ? facts unfurl when concern is investigated. you guys are doing a deep drill, there's no shallow 'shale mary' here. cheers
Thanks
I've been following news on energy for decades now and I never knew this was the reason why we import so much oil. I'm a big proponent of nuclear and believe that we need to diversify the energy economy. Peek oil is going to be a big problem because we've built up so much of our infrastructure around it. We should have never let the oil industry get such a stranglehold over our economy in the first place.
GDP cannot be used because it measures compensated activity. It does not discriminate between present economic compensation and debt compensation. Debt is based on presumed future profit.
"In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future".
Thanks for this presentation Nate.
Didn’t fully attend. Didn’t fully understand. It seemed to indicate that we are adaptable. That we can eke.
It reminded me of how food in over-industrialized nations has become big on oily, sugary, salty, empty calories but low on vitamin and mineral nutrition. How, instead of people going out in the world to socialize, they spend time in the virtual/augmented world socializing. From “real” to “unreal”. It’s still being sociable but not as we’ve known it. Still doing a similar job.
I’m probably fully in error with those analogies.
We facing Alot of issues in South Africa that have more to do with what this discussion than people are realising. The power company Eskom is a good case study right now.
This is describing the details of Bill Rees pessimism... No one is paying attention and they never will so we'll head over the cliff never understanding and only reacting...
Thank you, Nate and Art, for a great discussion. I have been looking at peak oil since I learned about it in 2009 in an Environmental Sociology class that I took. And, I, too, agree that people are debunking it and they're kicking the can down the road because of tar sands oil and fracking oil. My question is, as Art discovered, if only 60% of it is actual oil and the other 40% is stuff that we can't use to run our cars and trucks, wouldn't we have reached peak oil then and we're on the decline? Maybe I missed something. Does somebody want to clarify?
Thanks for this. I've been reading you guys since way back.
"Oil ain't what it used to be." indeed.
Excellent discussion. Thank you so much.