peak oil

[MachineGhost]

Actually since I live in Florida and was directly impacted by deep water horizon, I would say the later...especially seeing how I liked to eat fish and shrimp out of the gulf, and don't drive a car.

Also, there are many problems that are political in nature and cannot be solved by the market. In those cases we make value judgements and need laws and rules which are enforced by a greater power. I'm not saying that we always make the right choice as a society, but for those decisions that need to be made a representative democracy seems like one of the freest ways of doing things.

Also, I don't want to get into discussion of freedom. I want to talk about peak oil

Did you move from CA?

I actually agree with you.  The profit motive doesn't solve everything, but I digress.

As for Peak Oil, its been wrong since it missed the first forecast.  Even the inventor recanted.  What more needs be said unless you're looking to justify a problem that doesn't exist?

[doodle]

Actually since I live in Florida and was directly impacted by deep water horizon, I would say the later...especially seeing how I liked to eat fish and shrimp out of the gulf, and don't drive a car.

Also, there are many problems that are political in nature and cannot be solved by the market. In those cases we make value judgements and need laws and rules which are enforced by a greater power. I'm not saying that we always make the right choice as a society, but for those decisions that need to be made a representative democracy seems like one of the freest ways of doing things.

Also, I don't want to get into discussion of freedom. I want to talk about peak oil

Did you move from CA?

I actually agree with you.  The profit motive doesn't solve everything, but I digress.

As for Peak Oil, its been wrong since it missed the first forecast.  Even the inventor recanted.  What more needs be said unless you're looking to justify a problem that doesn't exist?

Okay, at some point in time there will be a peak in oil, unless you believe it is a renewable substance.

The more important question is what does the EROI ratio look like for future supplies and what are the ecological risks of pursuing it and the competing interests. Would you want some company fracking underneath your well water? If no, then that oil reserve might as well not exist.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, at some point in time there will be a peak in oil, unless you believe it is a renewable substance.

The more important question is what does the EROI ratio look like for future supplies and what are the ecological risks of pursuing it and the competing interests. Would you want some company fracking underneath your well water? If no, then that oil reserve might as well not exist.

…Unless somebody can discover a way to easily and cheaply extract that oil without contaminating the well. Is that impossible? I don't think so.

Furthermore, oil actually is a renewable resource. How did it come into existence in the first place? Natural, biological processes. Now, these processes took millions of years of course. But is it inconceivable that humans will someday discover a way to do it faster in a laboratory or factory setting? I don't think so.

[doodle]

Okay, at some point in time there will be a peak in oil, unless you believe it is a renewable substance.

The more important question is what does the EROI ratio look like for future supplies and what are the ecological risks of pursuing it and the competing interests. Would you want some company fracking underneath your well water? If no, then that oil reserve might as well not exist.

…Unless somebody can discover a way to easily and cheaply extract that oil without contaminating the well. Is that impossible? I don't think so.

Furthermore, oil actually is a renewable resource. How did it come into existence in the first place? Natural, biological processes. Now, these processes took millions of years of course. But is it inconceivable that humans will someday discover a way to do it faster in a laboratory or factory setting? I don't think so.

No doubt, both of those are possible. And ecological / climatological effects aside they might be part of the future. But, intelligent people and socities don't stake their fortunes based on the rosiest scenario. I would think a group that uses the PP investing strategy would understand uncertainty and the need to hedge bets and prepare for possible future outcomes that aren't so wonderful.

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Why is prudence and caution such a negative thing? Why shouldn't we as a society be looking at our transportation networks, agricultural systems, housing arrangements and thinking about how we can design them to be less dependent on future unknowns? And while I think that the market can help in this matter, the market generally doesn't have a time horizon that extends far enough into the future to encourage us to make the long term changes that we should be starting today.

[doodle]

Of course, I don't think we will....we will simply deal with the consequences when they come along like we always do. People will die, famines will happen, wars will erupt, adaptations will happen and we will move forward from a new base into a new era. Maybe that's the way things have to be

[Mountaineer]

Don't you think the hand-wringing anti-nuclear crowd will get "OK" with nuclear power if oil starts running out?  The greenies will decide that driving their car, heating their home and such trumps walking and freezing (or sweating).  So, I think the immediate future (say the next couple of hundred hundred years or so) might not turn out so badly.  Fact based reason vs. emotional hysterics might have a chance after all - if Obama chooses not to run for a 7th term. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

No doubt, both of those are possible. And ecological / climatological effects aside they might be part of the future. But, intelligent people and socities don't stake their fortunes based on the rosiest scenario. I would think a group that uses the PP investing strategy would understand uncertainty and the need to hedge bets and prepare for possible future outcomes that aren't so wonderful.

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Why is prudence and caution such a negative thing? Why shouldn't we as a society be looking at our transportation networks, agricultural systems, housing arrangements and thinking about how we can design them to be less dependent on future unknowns? And while I think that the market can help in this matter, the market generally doesn't have a time horizon that extends far enough into the future to encourage us to make the long term changes that we should be starting today.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that on a macro level, this prescription is hopelessly unrealistic. As you point out, the market isn't going to do it, but what I think you fail to realize is that the government isn't going to, either. Think about it. Fossil fuels are enormously advantageous to have. Renewables simply don't pack the energy punch of fossil fuels that is so necessary to power modern economies, which, after all, exist to serve the vast and ever-growing desires of energy-hungry populations eager to drive half a mile to work in large trucks, play golf in the desert, and take multiple Caribbean cruises a year. You wanna talk about democracy… what population is going to vote itself a government that reduces access to the fuel that the population needs to life an unsustainable opulent lifestlye?

No powerful government is going to do this. None. The only way they will ever realistically work to reduce the usage of fossil fuels is to cover geopolitical vulnerabilities. I bet the Ukranian government wishes their economy ran on domestically-produced nuclear-generated electricity rather than Russian natural gas, for example.

From a climatological perspective, the worst possible thing is for a country to discover new reserves within its own borders. With the shale gas and fracking technologies here in the USA, what geopolitically-advantageous reason does the U.S. government possibly have to wean itself and its economy off of oil? None. Zip. Expecting otherwise is folly.

There are steps you and I as individual people can do to cover our bases should bad things happen from these quarters. But expecting governments to seriously address these issues is to be doomed to constant disappointment.

Of course, I don't think we will....we will simply deal with the consequences when they come along like we always do. People will die, famines will happen, wars will erupt, adaptations will happen and we will move forward from a new base into a new era. Maybe that's the way things have to be

Bingo.

[doodle]

Well, I think much of the impetus needs to be cultural rather than market or politics driven. Why is it that Americans have such resource intensive lifestyles? It's not entirely human nature I would argue, our desires and values are derived from our culture, in the same way that everyone thought that avocado green fridges and salmon colored tiles looked great in the 60s. What I'm saying is that it is up to the trendsetters and cultural icons to take upon themselves as a civic duty to create a new message that doesn't influence people to go out and buy hummer h2s and 5000 square foot mansions and instead extols a set of values that supports a more healthy and robust lifestyle. How different would our world look if Henry David Thoreau was as hip and cool as Fifty Cent?

[MachineGhost]

Furthermore, oil actually is a renewable resource. How did it come into existence in the first place? Natural, biological processes. Now, these processes took millions of years of course. But is it inconceivable that humans will someday discover a way to do it faster in a laboratory or factory setting? I don't think so.

We already grow flawless diamonds in the lab.  But honestly, we'll just circumvent the whole situation for a much cleaner, cheaper, efficient source of energy such as cold fusion or hydrogen.  So all the fear mongering about "Peak Oil" for what will eventually go the way of whale oil is just silly.  But, without the wingnuts fear mongering, there wouldn't be any direction cast on innovating alternatives.  So...

[doodle]

What I think the world could benefit from is a marketing message and campaign piped into people's homes that doesn't try to sell them anything but instead try's to get them to think for themselves out of limitless options and possibilities that they never considered. Instead I think people are being force fed a steady diet of consumerism and wastefulness which then feeds on itself in a never ending vicious growth cycle....that worked for two hundred years but with a planet approaching 10 billion people it will destroy us and our quality of life if it continues.

[MachineGhost]

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Not to be flippant, but so the hell what?  So we'll have a Greater Depression for a few years which is the optimal breeding grounds for innovation which will then make the original problem irrelevant.  I mean, we are not going to hunker down and back to the Stone Age which is what Malthusian Enviro-Nazi's ultimately want.  It's just not going to happen, no matter how bad things get.  Even extraterrestrial invasion will see us revolting and resisting.  So its fear of the fear to lift Churchill.

[doodle]

Furthermore, oil actually is a renewable resource. How did it come into existence in the first place? Natural, biological processes. Now, these processes took millions of years of course. But is it inconceivable that humans will someday discover a way to do it faster in a laboratory or factory setting? I don't think so.

We already grow flawless diamonds in the lab.  But honestly, we'll just circumvent the whole situation for a much cleaner, cheaper, efficient source of energy such as cold fusion or hydrogen.  So all the fear mongering about "Peak Oil" for what will eventually go the way of whale oil is just silly.  But, without the wingnuts fear mongering, there wouldn't be any direction cast on innovating alternatives.  So...

Really, if cold fusion or hydrogen is such a sure bet why don't you stake your fortune on it? You are living in a world of science fiction. I think you might just be as disappointed as the bald people who were told that by now we would certainly have a cure for them.

[Pointedstick]

Well, I think much of the impetus needs to be cultural rather than market or politics driven. Why is it that Americans have such resource intensive lifestyles? It's not entirely human nature I would argue, our desires and values are derived from our culture, in the same way that everyone thought that avocado green fridges and salmon colored tiles looked great in the 60s

I think it's just because we have the resources to afford it. There's nothing special about us. You think the Chinese or Indians don't want to behave the same way? They're desperately upgunning their economies right now in the very pursuit! Their cultures may be different, but a desire for comfort and overshooting it into opulence seems to be universal.

What I think the world could benefit from is a marketing message and campaign piped into people's homes that doesn't try to sell them anything but instead try's to get them to think for themselves out of limitless options and possibilities that they never considered. Instead I think people are being force fed a steady diet of consumerism and wastefulness which then feeds on itself in a never ending vicious growth cycle....that worked for two hundred years but with a planet approaching 10 billion people it will destroy us and our quality of life if it continues.

You and I are different. We want to live in small houses that use as little energy as possible. We want our waste outputs to be coupled to the inputs of other systems. We want to have a large intellectual impact but a small resource impact. But you have to understand how bizarre we are. You can't expect people to want to be like us. My parents are flaming liberals and waste natural resources with rich abandon. They don't see the contradiction, and absolutely refused to acknowledge it during the time that I would try to point this out before I realized how futile it was.

Trying to make people more like us is folly. Accept humanity for how it is. This urge to control other people, to mold them into superior humans for their own good (who are naturally more like you) is simple hubris that will only make you miserable as you come to realize its total impossibility.

[doodle]

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Not to be flippant, but so the hell what?  So we'll have a Greater Depression for a few years which is the optimal breeding grounds for innovation which will then make the original problem irrelevant.  I mean, we are not going to hunker down and back to the Stone Age which is what Malthusian Enviro-Nazi's ultimately want.  It's just not going to happen, no matter how bad things get.  Even extraterrestrial invasion will see us revolting and resisting.  So its fear of the fear to lift Churchill.

Really? That's exactly what happened the last time that high civilization collapsed though. We hunkered down into the dark ages for about 6 centuries.

[MachineGhost]

Really? That's exactly what happened the last time that high civilization collapsed though. We hunkered down into the dark ages for about 6 centuries.

Um, thats not what happened in the Dark Ages.  And I was referring to the Great Depression of the 30's which is a modern context we all live in.  I can't be bothered to participate any more in this thread, as you just want to argue stupid points.

[doodle]

Really? That's exactly what happened the last time that high civilization collapsed though. We hunkered down into the dark ages for about 6 centuries.

Um, thats not what happened in the Dark Ages.  And I was referring to the Great Depression of the 30's which is a modern context we all live in.  I can't be bothered to participate any more in this thread, as you just want to argue stupid points.

The points you make are as unintelligible to me as mine probably seem to you. We are talking about energy supplies here and you draw reference to an economic monetary issue that is based on a fictitious faith in our banking system. I'm talking about real resources here, not paper representations of them. Conincidentlally it was the 1930s that saw the United States peak in oil discoveries. The next 40 years of growth were based on the fact that we were awash in cheap energy supplies. It wasn't human ingenuity alone that created the industrial revolution and the modern womders of the world that we enjoy today by the way, it was the energy resources that we discovered that allowed us to even dream up the possibility of making machines. Absent the discovery of coal and oil we would still be just as intelligent  creatures as we are today, but we would be tilling our fields with teams of oxen.  Now you are making the optimistic presumption that we have no limit to the amount of fossil fuels in the world (entirely discounting the EROI issue and what scores of reputable geologists have to say) and besides, if we run out of those we will just invent cold fusion to solve our problem.

Your optimistic stance regarding energy makes me wonder why a strategy like the permanent portfolio even appeals to you as you are so cocksure about everything.

[moda0306]

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Not to be flippant, but so the hell what?  So we'll have a Greater Depression for a few years which is the optimal breeding grounds for innovation which will then make the original problem irrelevant.  I mean, we are not going to hunker down and back to the Stone Age which is what Malthusian Enviro-Nazi's ultimately want.  It's just not going to happen, no matter how bad things get.  Even extraterrestrial invasion will see us revolting and resisting.  So its fear of the fear to lift Churchill.

Depressions = optimal breeding-grounds for innovation?  I don't think so.

The optimal situation would be to innovate before the crash hits.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[doodle]

Trying to make people more like us is folly. Accept humanity for how it is. This urge to control other people, to mold them into superior humans for their own good (who are naturally more like you) is simple hubris that will only make you miserable as you come to realize its total impossibility.

Curious since you are reading Nietszche what you derived from his philosophy. It seems that Nietzsche in a similar way to the American transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau was not trying to get man to adopt his philosophyper se, but really to start thinking for himself which is the opposite of what our culture encourages. As Americans we like to think of ourselves as rugged individuals, the reality is that true individual thinkers are rarer than tits on a bull.

I'm saying that our dominant cultural meme of massive over consumption is not simply a result of "how humanity is" but it is rather a form of indoctrination. I cannot see why you cannot see the way in which the most powerful entities on this planet (corporations) are trying to mold people on a daily basis into the consumers that they want. Why do you point to little people like myself an accusatory finger, yet let the massive mind control and shaping being done by the 800 pound gorillas go by without criticism?

[Pointedstick]

Curious since you are reading Nietszche what you derived from his philosophy. It seems that Nietzsche in a similar way to the American transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau were not trying to get man to adopt their philosophies per se, but really to start thinking for themselves which is the opposite of what our culture encourages. Americans like to think of ourselves as rugged individuals, the reality is that they are rarer than tits on a bull.

I'm saying that our dominant cultural meme of massive over consumption is not simply a result of "how humanity is" but it is rather a form of indoctrination. I cannot see why you cannot see the way in which the most powerful entities on this planet (corporations) are trying to mold people on a daily basis into the consumers that they want.

Of course I see it! But it's not just corporations. It's religions, schools, governments, our parents, and our peers. We are all constantly being "indoctrinated" by those around us, and especially those with any measure of power over us. That's what it means to live in a society. That's why the Chinese and Indians are equally indoctrinated. It's impossible to say what individuals would do in a vacuum, but the fact of the matter is that throughout all of recorded human history, very few people have voluntarily given up the opportunity for greater levels of comfort or pleasure. This was true in the age of Rome before there were corporations. This was true in the Islamic empires where they practically banned banking. It seems to be a constant: humans seek comfort and pleasure.

Why do you point to little people like myself an accusatory finger, yet let the massive mind control and shaping being done by the 800 pound gorillas go by without criticism?

Because I'm talking to you, not a corporation. You seem unhappy. And my observation is that you are unhappy because the people around you don't behave like you wish they would, and you long for a way to change them but don't feel powerful enough to make it happen. It's a mental trap. Because you're a person, I can talk to you directly and try to convince you that my advice will make you a happier person. I can't do that to a corporation.

[doodle]

All I'm saying is that we have constructed a lifestyle and economy for the world that is highly dependent on plentiful and cheap energy. Should that scenario continue, then all is fine and dandy. But what if it doesn't as many experts predict? Sure, you could dismiss them as whack jobs....but once again you are ignoring fallibility. A smart robust individual and society in my opinion would begin constructing a culture and lifestyle that is not dependent on future unknowns but at the same time can enjoy the benefits of them while they exist in the same way that I enjoy the income from my job but save a portion of it to guard against the future possibility of losing it.

Not to be flippant, but so the hell what?  So we'll have a Greater Depression for a few years which is the optimal breeding grounds for innovation which will then make the original problem irrelevant.  I mean, we are not going to hunker down and back to the Stone Age which is what Malthusian Enviro-Nazi's ultimately want.  It's just not going to happen, no matter how bad things get.  Even extraterrestrial invasion will see us revolting and resisting.  So its fear of the fear to lift Churchill.

Depressions = optimal breeding-grounds for innovation?  I don't think so.

The optimal situation would be to innovate before the crash hits.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Yes, it's why places like Afghanistan and Iraq are wellsprings of innovation. And since the Spanish economy tanked people are using the extra free time they have to create all sorts of mind blowing inventions in their garages.

MG, is just playing devils advocate. It's a necessary but thankless role I'm familiar with from many arguments here.

I hope no one thinks that I really think that I know what the hell is going on here. I fade in and out of existential crises most days and ponder ridiculous type questions like "why do things exist at all when it would be so much easier if they didn't?"  :-)

[doodle]

Curious since you are reading Nietszche what you derived from his philosophy. It seems that Nietzsche in a similar way to the American transcendentalists like Emerson and Thoreau were not trying to get man to adopt their philosophies per se, but really to start thinking for themselves which is the opposite of what our culture encourages. Americans like to think of ourselves as rugged individuals, the reality is that they are rarer than tits on a bull.

I'm saying that our dominant cultural meme of massive over consumption is not simply a result of "how humanity is" but it is rather a form of indoctrination. I cannot see why you cannot see the way in which the most powerful entities on this planet (corporations) are trying to mold people on a daily basis into the consumers that they want.

Of course I see it! But it's not just corporations. It's religions, schools, governments, our parents, and our peers. We are all constantly being "indoctrinated" by those around us, and especially those with any measure of power over us. That's what it means to live in a society. That's why the Chinese and Indians are equally indoctrinated. It's impossible to say what individuals would do in a vacuum, but the fact of the matter is that throughout all of recorded human history, very few people have voluntarily given up the opportunity for greater levels of comfort or pleasure. This was true in the age of Rome before there were corporations. This was true in the Islamic empires where they practically banned banking. It seems to be a constant: humans seek comfort and pleasure.

Why do you point to little people like myself an accusatory finger, yet let the massive mind control and shaping being done by the 800 pound gorillas go by without criticism?

Because I'm talking to you, not a corporation. You seem unhappy. And my observation is that you are unhappy because the people around you don't behave like you wish they would, and you long for a way to change them but don't feel powerful enough to make it happen. It's a mental trap. Because you're a person, I can talk to you directly and try to convince you that my advice will make you a happier person. I can't do that to a corporation.

Ha! I'm not unhappy. I'm an absurdist :-)

All of this is just a game to me. I get riled up and emotional about it in the same way that people get excited when playing World of Warcraft or whatever computer game gives them their jollies.

Predicting the future and finding causal relations is an interesting game, in the same way that Clue is. I just have fun looking at data, making inferences, predictions, stating opinions about "what if..."

Please don't think for a second that I really think this matters. I realize that life is just a game of illusions that has no ultimate purpose or meaning besides what you choose to derive from it. I'm just playing around. And when I hurl insults at MG and act insulted when he does the same to me that too is just a game of emotions....

I'm a bit weird, what can I say....

[doodle]

You know this play called life has to have a little drama and action in it or else it would get kind of boring :-)

[MachineGhost]

MG, is just playing devils advocate. It's a necessary but thankless role I'm familiar with from many arguments here.

I was NOT playing Devil's Advocate.   It is what I believe, based on historical FACTS, that somehow you don't seem privy to, likely because you don't have a process in place and don't go out of your way to look for them, rather only confirm your pre-existing beliefs which seem to be consistently negative in the Malthusian sense.

And I'm NOT talking up my book either.  Anyone is free to invest in the shale and gas oil revolution as well as the deepwater rigs in the Gulf of Mexico revolution.  What don't you try doing that instead of always complaining?  Talk is cheap and changes nothing.  Even Putin has the balls to act.

[doodle]

Please just make sure your dreamy revolution doesn't poison my drinking water and pollute my delicious seafood....thanks

[doodle]

The thing that I'm curious about MG is where your surety about this coming energy revolution comes from when geologists and industry insiders are so divided? The writers over at theoildrum.com aren't light on facts and experience and all of them are lacking your optimism.

http://theoildrum.com/

It seems like a fatal flaw in human reasoning to entirely discount one particular sides arguments. Situations where the facts are muddy and a degree of uncertainty seems justified and reasonable become all fired team like competitions of our side vs, your side. This is seen within all aspects of human life and it is a stupid remnant of our pack like survival instinct mentality.Sure, it seems entirely reasonable to weigh the evidence and come out with an opinion on a topic, but to fail to recognize that you might be wrong is absurd.

What i find so attractive about the PP is that it is an investment strategy that is based on the idea that the future is uncertain and therefore one is smart to hedge his bets, I just don't understand why it seems so radical to apply this same rationale to other areas of life?

I'm not saying that the energy revolution you predict won't happen, I'm simply saying it might not happen based on the facts and evidence that I have looked at. If that is the case, how can society hedge its bets to stave off possible catastrophe? Sure, you can prepare as an individual, but in what ways should our leaders and politicians be thinking about creating a system that is more robust to potential future shocks?

Although you might not like politicians, one cannot argue that they will continue to exist and their decisions will have ramifications. I'm sure there are encouragements and incentives that can be provided that will do little harm but will also provide a more diversified and robust energy base for our nation.

Intelligent socities do these kinds of things. They have discussions about the "what ifs" and they make contingency plans in case the forecasts don't turn out as expected. You seem to be suggesting that to make back up plans or design fail safe mechanisms is totally absurd because you are absolutely 100 percent sure that peak oil won't happen.