I go away for a few days and find a lot of posts on return... hard to remember where I last was in the discussion, but a few points and opinions...

First, peak oil hysteria does exist. Here are a couple of classic examples:





You can go to any image search engine, type in "peak oil", and get dozens more. Many are deeply detailed, admirably referenced... and complete nonsense. Some go for the elegant bell curve, others for the abrupt dive; in some cases you get the feeling that they drew the chart first and then made the projections to fit.

I don't buy the idea of an imminent geological peak, a peak driven by an absence of oil to pump. I don't buy it for a whole lot of reasons, some of which I've explained in the past.

I do see potential for limited production due to political, security, and investment-related constraints. Any number of scenarios can be envisioned, all of which could result in major price spikes and significant economic dislocation. Again, the problem would not be an absence of oil, but that oil would become very expensive for some time. I don't see the idea of a "peak" being a useful way to describe this: it's more a situation where ability to increase production might be constrained, or where output might see a transient decrease, in response to factors not at all related to the geology or engineering of oilfields... factors like war, revolution, state collapse, etc, ad infinitum.

The idea that the US military or a key ally might be unable to fight a war because there isn't any fuel seems to me much overblown. Again, there would be fuel, it would just be very expensive. War is already very very expensive, it would just become a bit more so. It would also become more expensive for whoever was on the other side, though not all potential antagonists are as energy-intensive as we are.

We might speculate that added cost might make us a bit more cautious about embarking on wars, but that's probably overly optimistic. An unfavorable cost/benefit picture hasn't stopped us in the past.

I think what's generally neglected, particularly from the small war perspective, is the potential impact of major oil price spikes on oil-importing developing countries, especially those that have developed enough to be oil-dependent but remain in very tenuous economic condition. In many of these countries there's real potential for governments to fall and for potentially extended instability and conflict. Whether or not any such situation would require US intervention is of course another question, but it's an outcome worth considering.

In short, I don't by the "peak oil" argument, but I do see reason to be concerned over, and prepared for, the impact of possible supply interruptions or inability to increase supply, and associated price responses.

Quote Originally Posted by Misifus View Post
OMG! This guy is a wacko and hilarious! You can even purchase his survival course. Very entertaining!
The marketing of imminent doom has been very profitable for many people, throughout history... not quite as profitable as the marketing of salvation (though they often go together), but close. Being wrong is not an obstacle.