Peak Oil is here

dumpthemonarchy
#1
Thought I would let you know that peak oil is here. There has been no new supply coming online for over two years, and none forthcoming in the future. It won't happen tomorrow, but it is coming in about one year.

http://www.countercurrents.org/arguimbau230410.htm (external - login to view)

Click on peak oil in the sidebar and read other good articles. The best part of the fall is the flying, and we're flying.

Write a letter to the media, your MP=MLA. Now. Or at least by next week. If this does not get into the news soon, we will pay forever.



The Imminent Crash Of Oil Supply: Be Afraid

By Nicholas C. Arguimbau
23 April, 2010

Countercurrents.org
What is going to happen and how it came to pass that we weren't forewarned


Look at this graph and be afraid. It does not come from Earth First. It does not come from the Sierra Club. It was not drawn by Socialists or Nazis or Osama Bin Laden or anyone from Goldman-Sachs. If you are a Republican Tea-Partier, rest assured it does not come from a progressive Democrat. And vice versa. It was drawn by the United States Department of Energy, and the United States military's Joint Forces Command concurs with the overall picture.

What does it imply? The supply of the world's most essential energy source is going off a cliff. Not in the distant future,but in a year and a half. Production of all liquid fuels, including oil, will drop within 20 years to half what it is today. And the difference needs to be made up with "unidentified projects," which one of the world's leading petroleum geologists says is just a "euphemism for rank shortage," and the world's foremost oil industry banker says is "faith based."


The original graph is available here

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf

This graph was prepared for a DOE meeting in spring, 2009. Take a good look at what it says, assuming it to be correct:

1`. Conventional oil will be almost all gone in 20 years, and there is nothing known to replace it.

2.. Production of petroleum from existing conventional sources has been dropping at a rate slightly over 4% per year for at least a year and will continue to do so for the indefinite future.

3. The graph implies that we are past the peak of production and that there are750 billion barrels of conventional oil left (the areas under the "conventionals" portion of the graph, extrapolated to the right as an exponentional). Assuming that the remaining reserves were 900 billion or more at the halfway point, then we are at least 150 billion barrels, or 5 years, past the midpoint.

4. Total petroleum production from all presently known sources, conventional and unconventional, will remain "flat" at approximately 83 mbpd for the next two years and then will proceed to drop for the foreseeable future, at first slowly but by 4% per year after 2015.

5. Demand will begin to outstrip supply in 2012, and will already be 10 million barrels per day above supply in only five years. The United States Joint Forces Command concurs with these specific findings. http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf, at 31. 10 million bpd is equivalent to half the United States' entire consumption. To make up the difference, the world would have to find another Saudi Arabia and get it into full production in five years, an impossibility. See The Oil Drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5154 (external - login to view)

5. The production from presently existing conventional sources will plummet from its present 81 mbpd to 30 mbpd by 2030, a 63% drop in a 20-year period.

6. Meeting demand requires discovering, developing, and bringing to full production 60mbpd (105-45) of "unidentified projects" in the 18-year period of 2012-2030 and approximately 25 mbpd of such projects by 2020, on the basis of a very conservative estimate of only 1% annual growth in demand. The independent Oxford Institute of Energy Studies has estimated a possibe development of 6.5mbpd of such projects, including the Canadian tar sands, implying a deficit of 18-19 mbpd as compared to demand, and an approximate 14 mbpd drop in total liquid fuels production relative to 2012, a 16% drop in 8 years.

7. The curve is virtually identical to one produced by geologists Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere and published in "The End of Cheap Oil," in Scientific American, March, 1998, twelve years ago. They projected that production of petroleum from conventional sources would drop from 74 mbpd in 2003 (as compared to 84 mbpd in 2008 in the DOE graph) and drop to 39 mbpd by 2030 (as compared to 39 mbpd by 2030 in the DOE graph!).www.jala.com/energy1.php.Campbell (external - login to view) and Laherrere predicted a 2003 "peak," and the above graph implies a 'peak" (not necessarily the actual peak, but the midpointr of production of 2005 or before.

So here we are, if the graph is right, on the edge of a precipice, with no prior warning from either the industry, which knows what it possesses, or the collective governments, which ostensibly protect the public interest. As Colin Campbell, a research geologist who has worked for many large oil companies and studied oil depletion extensively (http://www.peakoil.net/about-aspo/dr-colin-campbell (external - login to view)) says, "The warning signals have been flying for a long time. They have been plain to see, but the world turned a blind eye, and failed to read the message." http://www.greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html (external - login to view) The world was completely transformed by oil for the duration of the twentieth century, but if the graph is right, within 20 years it will be virtually gone but our dependence upon it will not. Instead, we have

> zero time to plan how to replace cars in our lives
> zero time to plan how to manufacture and install milions of furnaces to replace home oil furnaces, and zero time toproduce the infrastructure necessary to carry out that task
> zero time to retool suburbia so it can function without gasoline
> zero time to plan for replacement of the largest military establishment in history, almost completely dependent upon oil
> zero time to plan to support nine billion peolple without the "green revolution," a creation of the age of oil
> zero time to plan to replace oil as an essential fuel in electricity production
> zero time to plan for preserving millions of miles of roads without asphalt.
> zero time to plan for the replacement of oil in its essential role in EVERY industry.
> zero time to plan for replacement of oil in its exclusive role of transporting people, agricultural produce, manufactured goods. In a world without oil that appears only twenty years away, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting US grain to other countries, there will be no oil-burning airlines linking the world's major cities, there will be no oil-burning ships transporting Chinese manufactured goods to the billions now dependent on them.
> zero time to plan for the survival of the billions of new people expected by 2050 in the aftermath of "eak everything."
> zero capital, because of failing banks ansd public and private debt, to address these issues.
Why zero time?

Because if we at any time use more oil than allowed by the graph, we will have even less later..

Because we are already committed to supporting 2.5 billion more people on what we have.

Because every day we continue upward in our oil consmption, even though we continue to have more people who need it and billions who deserve to rise from abject poverty, we are making the future supply shortage worse.

If you believe the graph, demand will outstrip supply starting at the end of 2011, and severely outstrip supply in five years. What are we going to do, and how are we going to do it? We have no time to decide.

IS THE GRAPH RIGHT?

It is very unlikely that things can be better than the graph indicates. Why?

The great majority of authorities believe there is little more than 1 trillion barrels of conventional oil left. You can make a simple calculation from that: At the present rate of 30 billion barrels per year, 82 million barrels per day, it will all be gone in 33 years, and consumption has been rapidly increasing, not decreasing, so if anything it will all be gone sooner...

A closer look at the graph reveals that it was drawn on the assumption that the world's existing conventional fields contain only 750,000 barrels at this time, enough to keep us going only 25 years.

The graph assumes a decline rate of 4% per year. As long as the estimates of remaining reserves are right, that can't be far off. In fact, 4% is a relatively low decline rate compared to what has been observed in oil fields generally. Hold on, it's going to be a fast ride down!

The major oil companies, which presumably know better than we do how much oil is in their possession, "conspicuously fail to invest in new refining capacity, which would surely be needed if production were set to rise.'" Campbell, http://www.greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html (external - login to view) . The excess of refining capacity over demand remained close to 10 million bpd during the nineties, but dropped to almost nothing in the last decade as a result of failure to build new capacity. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/01/chp1pdf/fig1_21.pdf (external - login to view). The United States Joint Forces Command has also reported the failure of the oil industry to invest in the refining capacity necessary to permit expanded production, and that "Even were a concerted effort begun today to repair that shortage, it would be ten years before production could catch up with expected demand." "Joint Operating Environment 2010," at 26. http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf (external - login to view)
The most frequiently discussed significant source of unexploited petroleum is the tar sands of Alberta, Canada. Because a high percentage of the energy value of the tar sands has to be expended in their extraction, the reported quantity of reserves is misleading, and two independent researchers have estimated respectively that production from the tar sands by 2020 may be expected of 3.3 milion bpd and 4 million bpd. Consequently, the likelihood of the tar sands making a significant contribution to the world's petroleum demand in the foreseeabe future is low.Phil Hart and Chris Skrebowski, "Peak oil: A detailed and transparent analysis," http://www.energybulletin.net/node/30537 (external - login to view)
The shortfall, labelled "unidentified projects," that needs to be filled in 20 years is an unprecedented 60 million barrels per day, equivalent to 3/4 of today's total production. We have never in history done anything comparable to that. Although there are large deposits of "unconventional" oil such as the Canadian tar sands, most are making only slow progress at development and consume as much or more energy in their production as they can generate. The independent Oxford Institute of Energy Studies has estimated a possibe development of 6.5mbpd of such projects, when we'll need more than that every two years just to keep our place. So the likelihood of anything at all making a significant dent in the shortfall is small. Indeed, the "unidentified projects" can be perceived as just a "euphemism for rank shortage" (Campbell http://www.greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html (external - login to view)) The United States Joint Forces Command has come to the similar conclusion: that of all potential future energy sources, "None of these provide much reason for optiimism," http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2010/JOE_2010_o.pdf (external - login to view) Petroleum industry investment banker Matt Simmons calls them "faith-based."http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Northern%20Trust%20Bank.pdf (external - login to view) at 4
The "Hubbert Peak" theory of oil field depreciation, which predicted the peak and subsequent demise of the US oil inudtry 15 years in advance and within 2 years of its occurence http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf (external - login to view), says that with normal production methods, a country reaches peak production in its oil fields when they are 50% depleted, with the production curve being bell-shaped. The peak can be postponed with innovative extraction techniques, but this only causes subsequent more rapid decline of the deposits and total extraction if anything decreasing. The world reached the midpoint of its reserves in the last decade, so the 2005 "peak" implied by the above graph is very close to what would be expected.

Astonishingly, Dr. Hubbert in the same 1956 paper predicted, based upon records of only 90 billion barrels of oil having been recovered worldwide, that the peak of world petroleum production would be approximately the year 2000; this apparently quite accurate prediction by Hubbert has largely been forgotten. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf (external - login to view) . One is tempted to ask why, if one man could predict the timing of the peak 44 years before it occurred, the United States Department of Energy is incapable of recognizing it after it occurred.

There's a common feeling that just becase we don't know where the oil is, doesn't mean the Mother Lode isn't right around the corner. But if you've looked everywhere, the chances are a lot slimmer. The lag time between discovery and bringing to full production of a field is 30-40 years, which means that even the virtually impossible discovery of another Saudi Arabia would barely change the graph above, of production between now and 2030. But no such discoveries are left to be made. The rate of discovery of new conventional oil has been steadily dropping now for FORTY years despite ever-more searching with ever-more-sophisticated technology. There have been two pivotal events: the peak of discovery around 1968, and the day in 1981` when discovery of new oil deposits no longer kept up with production. There is nothing complicated about this. As Campbell says, the warning sign there for anyone to see
"simply recognised two undeniable facts:
You have to find oil before you can produce it
Production has to mirror discovery after a time lag

"Discovery reached a peak in the 1960s - despite all the technology we hear so much about, and a worldwide search for the best prospects. It should surprise no one that the corresponding peak of production is now upon us." Indeed, Campbell's second point means that the inevitable peaking of oil production in the early 21st century, should have been clear for all to see since the peaking of discovery in the late sixties.
Campbell does not stand alone. As the US Joint Forces Command observes, "The discovery rate for new oil and gas fields over the last two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields." "Joint Operating Environment 2010," at 31.
Saudi Arabia's largest field, the Ghawar, is now in decline and it appears that the country has nothing to offset that decline. That has led many to conclude that "Peak Oil is a Done Deal." (Dave Cohen, ASPO/USA Energy Bulletin, July 16, 2008. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45940 (external - login to view))

IF IT'S A "DONE DEAL," WHY DID IT TAKE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO GET HERE?

"We can wish it, we can dream it, but it will never be, oil is not renewable, and therefore in time it must be realized that THERE WILL BE NO OIL." ENO Petroleum Corporation, "Peak Oil - The Global Oil Crisis," http://www.enopetroleum.com/opecoilreservers.html (external - login to view). It is hard to conceive of an act or omission causing more pain to more people and creatures than the failure of "those in charge" to announce with reasonable forewarning that the oil supply was going to crash. But it is upon us with no forewarning to the general public at all.

The government planning agencies charged with helping the public survive the end of oil could not have performed worse than by recognizing peak oil only after it has happened. Like anthropogenic global warming ("AGW"), "peak oil" has been the subject of decades of denial. Notwithstanding Hubbert's famous coup in pinpointing the peak of US oil production through the simple observation that production naturally peaks when the supply is half gone, few would listen that because the worldwide supply of conventional oil would reach the halfway point in the first decade of this century, trouble was right around the corner. The fact is, coming to that point meant we were in trouble regardless, because the early stages of development of an oil field (like the early stages of growth of virtually anything else) follow an exponential growth curve, and the world's growth addicts love exponential curves, but once you get beyond the halfway point, it is a mathematical certainty that the longer you attempt to conform the field to a pattern of exponential growth, the more the end is going to be precipitous. If you don't decelerate rapidly, that is preciely what has to happen - the decline after the halfway point can only be more rapid than the rise beforehand.

What Hubbert observed with respect to the US oil reserves has an intuitive sense to it - as the amount of oil in the field drops, its pressure drops, so the flow begins to slow down - the gusher goes down to a trickle. But if the owner of the field doesn't make full disclosure of what's there, outsiders can only make educated guesses from general geological principles and what the owner is selling, as to what the future holds. And as we all know, full disclosure is not the name of the game in the oil business.

If the field is just allowed to release its liquid gold at its natural rate, that's not too bad, because observations like the Hubbert Peak can be applied. But as technology improves and well pressure can be jacked up to compensate for declining reserves, (for instance by pumping water into the wells) the outside observer loses certainty..There remains information about the company's reserves, but the accuracy of that information is seriously open to question. Within OPEC, which allows its members to market in accordance with the amount of their reserves. Hart, "Introduction to Peak Oil," www.philhart.com/content/introduction-peak-oil, (external - login to view) there are great temptations to fudge. Outside observers can follow a country's reports on its reserves, but those reports are highly suspect. They will remain constant for years while the country is pumping great amounts of oil without reporting any new discoveries, and indeed they can take sudden leaps upward also without reports of new discoveries. Such "records" lead to the inevitable conclusion that many OPEC reserves reports are fictional. If you would like to see charts of OPEC oil reserves mysteriously contorting themselves, you are invited to take a look at Hart's essay. So if you thought the experts had it all in hand and would reliably warn us when trouble was a'brewin', think again. Not only do OPEC members have internal business reasons to exaggerate their reserves, but companies on the public stock market want to satisfy their stockholders of their long-term viability, and all oil producers want to make their customers confident that they can rely on oil for the long haul. By concealing their future from homeowners, oil companies have made trillions for the real estate business and the banks at the expense of those who chose urban sprawl over dense "near-in" housing, and the companies themselves will make trillions in the near future selling to consumers trapped into oil addiction, who might have sought alterntives more vigorously had they known how close the crash was.

Matt Simmons, the banker who has spent his post-Harvard-Business School career advising oil companies and seving as peak oil advisor to the last Presidential administration and specifically to President Bush, ought to know. And what he says is that Western oil companies like ExxonMobil would be strongly opposed to the idea of transparent data because it would reveal “how crappy and old their fields really are.” Energy TechStocks.com, "Meeting the Challenge Matt Simmons: Force All Oil Producers to Give Transparent Data," According to EnergyStocks.com, Simmons has warned that "the failure of Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers to provide transparent production data has left the world in a lurch, unable to know whether it can maintain an adequate supply of oil in the face of burgeoning demand Such uncertainty has led to indecision about whether the world should invest the huge sums of money necessary to develop alternative transportation fuel sources."

Just how bad the published reserve figures for the major oil-producing nations are, has long been understood. We like to say that what goes up, must come down, but not OPEC member-nation oil reserves. Their allowed production quotas depend upon their reserves, so there is a built-in temptation to overstate reserves and never reflect in reduiced reserve figures, what they have pumped out. In 1988, the OPEC oil reserves "magically and miraculously increased twofold," without any corresponding discovery of new fields. The officially reported reserves follow graphs that would be comical were it not for the fact that 6.8 billion people, and counting, depend upon the real numbers. See http://www.enopetroleum.com/opecoilreservers.html (external - login to view)

Now we are facing the consequences of the major oil producers "leaving the world in a lurch": almost complete inability to cope with the severe difficulties we face in transporting, feeding, housing, and keeping warm the burgeoning billions of our numbers. It is hard to conceive of how any private entity could impose so much pain on so many. It didn't need to be that way. The US Government and its cohorts around the world could have imposed transparency on the oil companies as to their true reserves, and we would have had fair warning and the possibiity of coping. Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese.

Of course, as noted, it is possible to produce a graph roughly like the one above with nothing more than production data and reserves data. The former are public, and the latter are known to a limited extent. It has been the consensus of decisionmakers for many years that the world had a total (both produced and still in the ground) of approximately 2 trillion barrels of conventional oil, and as pointed out by Campbell, four decades of dwindling discoveries have left us with an absolute inability to increase available reserves in a timely manner to mitigate the looming shortfall. The two trillion barrel figure was absolutely critical for doing what planning could be done, but at the beginning of the last decade, the US broke ranks with the consensus of the rest of the world, declared through the historically-reliable US Geological Survey (USGS) that world reserves of conventional oil (both consumed and yet-to-be-consumed) were in fact in the neighborhood of three trillion barrels rather than two, a claim which if true immediately provided the world by sleight of hand with an extra thirty years' supply at present consumption rates. To be sure, USGS former employees disputed its estimates as relying "heavily on guesses to calculate new oil discoveries," and on doubling the usual 30 percent recovery rate from reserves "with no technology in mind capable of doing that." Gordon, "Worries Swelling Over Oil Shortage," Energy Bulletin March 20-, 2005. The concerns about overestimation of discoveries proved correct: they continued on their downward track. This alone created a discrepancy between the USGS projections and reality of approximately 900 billion barrels. At the same time, the production data appeared to peak in 2005, prominent Princeton University petroleum geologist Kenneth Deffeyes predicted that 2005 was the year, and Simmons suggested similar concerns. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4835 (external - login to view) and http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Northern%20Trust%20Bank.pdf (external - login to view) (p. 31). Nonetheless, based upon the USGS wishful thinking, during the Bush Administration, the Department of Energy was forecasting a "production peak somewhere between 2021 and the start of the next century, with 2037 the most likely date." http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4835 (external - login to view) Not to worry.

With the peak imminent in reality, like the global warming "scientific skeptics," industry in 2006 came up with a "theory" published in a non-peer-reviewed report, that "peak oil" was in its totality a false concept, and that the true behavior of an oil field or conglomeration thereof was a peak followed by an "undulating plateau" and then a gentle decline by around 2% per year, years, perhaps decades later. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), "“It is likely that the situation will unfold in slow motion and that there are a number of decades to prepare for the start of the undulating plateau. This means that there is time to consider the best way to develop viable energy alternatives that would eventually provide the bulk of our transport energy needs." www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/about/about.aspx (external - login to view) Not to worry.

CERA faulted the "peak oil" proponets with failure to take into acount the facts that reserve estimates evolve with time and that so does the technology used in extracting oil. The criticism is disingenuous given that the industry refuses to disclose either the technology it is using at any one time or its true reserves, and the reserve estimates evolve with time more for political reasons than geological one.. The facts the proponents of "peak oil" fail to take into account are facts that the industry will not disclose. As Simmons has pointed out, "With solid global field-by-field production data, 'Peak Oil timing could be 'proved'." And, or course, if the "undulating plateau" theory is correct, all the industry has to do is to disclose their true facts to prove it, but they won't. Regardless, average decline rates of an oil sujpply are dictated by only two numbers: how fast we are now using the oil, and how much is left. Lower decline rates now mean higher decline rates later. Those are immutable facts even if the "undulating plateau" is correct. So to avoid a rapid decline in available oil, we must discover and bring to production staggeringly large new supplies, right now today. Nonetheless, the CERA "theory" has sufficiently intimidated the bureaucrats that DOE's official position at the moment, as expressed to Le Monde, notwithstanding the graph, is that we are "entering a plateau." petrole.blog.lemonde.fr:80/2010/03/25/washington-considers-a-decline-of-world-oil-production-as-of-2011/ (external - login to view)

At the same time all of this was happening, the UN, the US Congress, the Obama Administration and the oil industry were negotiating over goals for global warming legislation. Miraculously, although arguably coincidentally, the percentage-reduction goals agreed to fit quite precisely the percentage reductions in oil consumption that will be physiclly forced upon us all if you believe the above graph: an 18% drop from 2005 by 2020, and an 85% drop from 2005 by 2050. (It is possible to extrapolate the graph, which assumes exponentially dropping levels of existing reserves at a 4% per year rate.) This compares to reductions of CO2 emissions 17% from 2005 in 2020 and 80% from 2005 in 2050 in the bill. So it would appear that the legislative goals have been set, for whatever reason, so that the oil industry will have to do little if anything it won't have to do in any event because of dwindling reserves. http://ecoglobe.ch/energy/e/peak9423.htm (external - login to view) . It is hard to see how the negotiators could have come up with such correspondence if they had not all been aware of the impending crash of production and the expected decline rate.. Coincidence? Maybe, but somehow it seems unlikely. Whether or not by intent, the goals fit the needs of the oil companies rather than the needs calculated by the scientists.

In short, with all the evidence available, it is hard to see how the industry and the Department of Energy could have failed to see this coming. Their failure to warn the public, given the consequences, verges on the criminal. And if somehow they can claim innocence, then we still have to ask why they did not heed the warning of Matt Simmons, advisor on peak oil to the Bush administration, as to the importance of transparency. But they did not, and here we are.

CONCLUSIONS

We are on our own. We are rapidly going to have to deal with less and less oil, since there has been no forewarning and no planning. It is a time for communities to prepare for community energy independence, because only that way will be safe. This means relying on the sun and wind and water that have always been with us. It means cooperation with each other to get through seriously difficult times. It means finding altenatives to oil throughout our lives as quickly as possible - the oil that runs our cars, the oil that heats our houses, the oil that runs generators for our electricity, the oil from which chemical fertilizers and insecticides and plastics and polyester are made, the oil that brings countless manufactured goods to us from overseas, the oil on which farmers depend for irrigation pujmps, for transporting produce to market, for working the soil to bring us food. If you believe the graph, it will almost all be gone in 20 years. And the progressives and Tea-Partyers must remember that the people who brought this calamity to us are not our friends but are people we trusted and they trusted, so we must work together to cope with the mess that is upon us, and "to throw the rascals out.".

The author, Nicholas C. Arguimbau, is an appellate and environmental lawyer licensed in California and residing in Western Massachusetts. He may be contacted at (external - login to view).
 
dumpthemonarchy
#2
Now we have "firm power" and "intermintent power." So why do we suddenly have two kinds of power? Ten years ago no one thought about this. It's time to think about our energy before its too late.
 
Slim Chance
#3
The threat of peak oil has been floated around since the 1970's... It seems that everytime that it morphs into an issue, a large multinational makes a record find.

Hell the oilsands in AB represents a huge reserve and that doesn't factor-in the potential of the Athabasca fields in Saskatchewan.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim ChanceView Post

The threat of peak oil has been floated around since the 1970's... It seems that everytime that it morphs into an issue, a large multinational makes a record find.

Hell the oilsands in AB represents a huge reserve and that doesn't factor-in the potential of the Athabasca fields in Saskatchewan.

Wrongo in the Congo my good man. The wolf is here and many will die. Productivity and growth will stop. The govt will step in and control key resources to ensure stability. We are already in a period of volatility and it will continue, thus ending the market economy as we have known it. The age of "certainty" is over. Dull Canada is dead. The world is in play. That's us too. Time to bulk up the military.

YouTube - Puru Saxena China amp Peak Oil

 
Walter
#5
The myth of peak oil serves two masters:
1) Lefties who want to take away my liberty
2) Oil companies who want to take away my money
 
TenPenny
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The myth of peak oil serves two masters:
1) Lefties who want to take away my liberty
2) Oil companies who want to take away my money

Oil companies who want to take away your money are capitalist ventures, so you should be proud of them.
 
Slim Chance
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Wrongo in the Congo my good man. The wolf is here and many will die. Productivity and growth will stop.

I can't disagree with that synopsis; however, the kicker boils down to the assumption that we will have no source of fuel to power the economy.

Coal is the most abundant (non-renewable) resource that is widely found throughout the world. It may not be the clean-option, but I doubt that may will complain if there are no options remaining.
 
Cliffy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The myth of peak oil serves two masters:
1) Lefties who want to take away my liberty
2) Oil companies who want to take away my money

Walter, you are walking rhetoric. Have you ever had an original thought? Do you get all you "news" from FOXNews? You sound like a tea bagger.
 
Walter
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

You sound like a tea bagger.

Don't assume I'm a homosexual.
 
Cliffy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Don't assume I'm a homosexual.

You like shouting a lot, though. Perhaps you protest too much. Tea bagging is not restricted to gays. I believe it is more of a college prank.
 
Walter
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

You like shouting a lot

I have poor eyesight and the larger font makes it easier for me to communicate.
 
Walter
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Tea bagging is not restricted to homosexuals. I believe it is more of a college prank.

Perhaps in homosexual colleges. Had anyone done it to me they would be nutless now.
 
darkbeaver
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

I have poor eyesight and the larger font makes it easier for me to communicate.

I see what you're saying Walter but lefties righties and centrists have an equal stake in starving and freezing to death so you should adjust your suspicions to the next rung up on the control ladder. TPTB have been desperate of late to impart a state of global hysteria and for reasons that are paramount from the perspective of the ruling social economic elite the scum formerly known as the shepherd kings. Why is this state of global hysteria necessary for them you might ask, well it is vital for their continuation that we all die except for a small remnant to farm after the schedualed apocolyptic event, namely the rapidly preceeding onset of the next iceage. There will be order in the new world. The thing that's always kept them in control is the ages old stranglehold on energy, raw power. We exist surrounded by zero point energy, when ever the knowledge leaks out there is global war to suppress it. You can't have democratic freedom and blanket suppression of science at the same time for very long before you need to sweep the troublemakers away. Natural cyclic calamity is historically the preferred method, however induced pandemics or global war are invoked when you can't depend on a natural confluence of the planets. IMO
Last edited by darkbeaver; May 5th, 2010 at 09:59 AM..
 
Walter
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

I see what you're saying Walter but lefties righties and centrists have an equal stake in starving and freezing to death so you should adjust your suspicions to the next rung up on the control ladder. TPTB have been desperate of late to impart a state of global hysteria and for reasons that are paramount from the perspective of the ruling social economic elite the scum formerly known as the shepherd kings. Why is this state of global hysteria necessary for them you might ask, well it is vital for their continuation that we all die except for a small remnant to farm after the schedualed apocolyptic event, namely the rapidly preceeding onset of the next iceage. There will be order in the new world. The thing that's always kept them in control is the ages old stranglehold on energy, raw power. We exist surrounded by zero point energy, when ever the knowledge leaks out there is global war to suppress it. You can't have democratic freedom and blanket suppression of science at the same time for very long before you need to sweep the troublemakers away. Natural cyclic calamity is historically the preferred method, however induced pandemics or global war are invoked when you can't depend on a natural confluence of the planets. IMO

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Thanks for considering my handicap.
 
darkbeaver
#15
thanks for considering all of mine
 
TenPenny
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

thanks for considering all of mine

I always consider that, your perspective on life makes it hard to avoid.
 
AnnaG
#17
Peak oil is here? I was reading a few months ago in a 2008 thread that said peak oil was here then.
 
TenPenny
#18
I thought it said 'teak oil', and I was thinking just in time for sailing season, the deck needs a good treatment after the winter storage.
 
darkbeaver
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I always consider that, your perspective on life makes it hard to avoid.

That's a very nice thing to say.
 
AnnaG
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Wrongo in the Congo my good man. The wolf is here and many will die. Productivity and growth will stop. The govt will step in and control key resources to ensure stability. We are already in a period of volatility and it will continue, thus ending the market economy as we have known it. The age of "certainty" is over. Dull Canada is dead. The world is in play. That's us too. Time to bulk up the military.

In the meantime, Europe is forging ahead while North Am is screwing the pooch.

Germany: 15% of its work done. Canada: still in REM sleep.
 
Bar Sinister
#21
I suspect Slim may be right on this one, at least in the short term. Running out of oil has been a popular theme for many years both from conservationists and large oil companies, but we haven't run out yet. The first time I saw an article like this was during the 1970s and it predicted that we would run out of oil by about the turn of the century. However, there is a strong message in the thread and that is sooner or later oil resources will run out, especially with consumption increasing world wide. It may be wise not to actually wait for it to happen. And even with the oil (tar?) sands there is not enough new oil coming on stream to make up for the increased consumption of the last three decades.
 
Slim Chance
#22
In the end, you are right... Oil won't last forever.

What i find particularly interesting are the potential underlying reasons that this threat gets revived every decade or so.

I can fully understand why the oil industry would want to promote this message and i can see why the alt-energy sector would promote it as well... As for the rest of the groups that bang this drum; I'm at a loss for an answer.
 
Liberalman
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The myth of peak oil serves two masters:
1) Lefties who want to take away my liberty
2) Oil companies who want to take away my money

You forgot Righties who want to take away your rights
 
Slim Chance
#24
Righties like the NRA
 
dumpthemonarchy
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim ChanceView Post

I can't disagree with that synopsis; however, the kicker boils down to the assumption that we will have no source of fuel to power the economy.

Coal is the most abundant (non-renewable) resource that is widely found throughout the world. It may not be the clean-option, but I doubt that may will complain if there are no options remaining.

Gasoline powers 90% of our transportation system. There no alternative here. We need ten years to prepare and because oil companies kept information about how much oil they had secret, we essentially have no warning because there is no public information about peak oil to make politicians act. Losing one source of energy is a major event in a society, it happens once a century or millenium. Market signals are inadequate.
 
AnnaG
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Gasoline powers 90% of our transportation system. There no alternative here.

BS General Motors had an electric car in production in 1996. They canned it and squished loads of the cars. Now they are wishing they had kept producing them.
Quote:

We need ten years to prepare and because oil companies kept information about how much oil they had secret, we essentially have no warning because there is no public information about peak oil to make politicians act. Losing one source of energy is a major event in a society, it happens once a century or millenium. Market signals are inadequate.

I agree it will take time, but it is inevitable and the sooner people accept the inevitability, the better.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Peak oil is here? I was reading a few months ago in a 2008 thread that said peak oil was here then.

Well, yes, it was here then but the world economy fell into recession so demand for oil weakened. Once demand picks up, and it will as China, Indian, Russia and other developing nations recover, expect to hear more about peak oil. China bought 15 million cars in 2009, they weren't supposed to hit that number until 2020 or so.

Industrialization is increasing exponentially, oil production is not even increasing, it is flat, and 86 million barrels per day. And there is 3-4% deterioration of supply each year. Supply and demand are moving in opposite directions.
 
AnnaG
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

Well, yes, it was here then but the world economy fell into recession so demand for oil weakened. Once demand picks up, and it will as China, Indian, Russia and other developing nations recover, expect to hear more about peak oil. China bought 15 million cars in 2009, they weren't supposed to hit that number until 2020 or so.

Industrialization is increasing exponentially, oil production is not even increasing, it is flat, and 86 million barrels per day. And there is 3-4% deterioration of supply each year. Supply and demand are moving in opposite directions.

Eventually the demand for oil will dwindle to nothing as we develop better sources. Which is fine by me. IMO, the stuff should never have been utilized in the first place.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Slim ChanceView Post

In the end, you are right... Oil won't last forever.

What i find particularly interesting are the potential underlying reasons that this threat gets revived every decade or so.

I can fully understand why the oil industry would want to promote this message and i can see why the alt-energy sector would promote it as well... As for the rest of the groups that bang this drum; I'm at a loss for an answer.

Forever is now getting very close. The oil industry is going to get royally screwed for their suppressing information regarding their oil reserves. The govt will have to take over this industry as it is a vital resource.

Revived every decade or so? Some sort of selective recollection seems to be going on here. Ten years ago few heard of peak oil, let alone talked about it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Tribune- Saudis to Turn Increasingly to Oil to Meet Power Needs (external - login to view)

Saudis to Turn Increasingly to Oil to Meet Power Needs
By Andres Cala (external - login to view)
Posted on Mar. 24, 2010






Saudi Arabia’s booming economy and soaring demand for electricity is increasing the kingdom’s reliance on oil to produce power. By 2012, it may be using 1.2 million barrels a day – more than twice current levels -- to meet its electricity needs. This increasing use of oil is occurring because the Saudis’ natural gas production cannot keep up with power demand.

The gas shortage is occurring even though Saudi Aramco has been working to to boost natural gas production. But a combination of reasons and trends point to the inevitable increased use of oil, a factor that could have deep impact on world oil markets in the future, despite Saudi Arabia’s current spare oil production capacity of about 4 million barrels per day.

------------------------------------

Even the Saudis want to use more oil, so there is less for everyone else. Worldwide, world oil demand is on an upswing. Those who can pay will be fine, those who can't will suffer. Problem is, everyone wants to use more oil, but their not finding new oil. Something has to give soon.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

BS General Motors had an electric car in production in 1996. They canned it and squished loads of the cars. Now they are wishing they had kept producing them. I agree it will take time, but it is inevitable and the sooner people accept the inevitability, the better.

Yes, such a mistake, a huge error, a gross error of stupidity. You would have thought that GM, likening itself to an empire, would have made an electric car just to be cool, or just to show off its cred as a with it new tech company. But shortly after they killed the electric car, they started making SUVs, a product using dead end old truck technology and that used oil like it was going out of style. They gave themselves a lost decade. The bean counters liked SUVs because profits went up.

However, to make amends we need millions of new cars and new infrastructure. That takes time, and cheap oil makes cars and every thing else. Without cheap oil, we can't make enough electric cars. A Whole new system has to be set up and get used to the new reality. Convincing someone of a new idea takes time, implementing it can take even long.

Many people think electric cars suck, they have less power, you can't travel far with them due to recharging issues, the new tech is buggy, etc.
 

Similar Threads

3
Peak Oil disaster looming
by dumpthemonarchy | Feb 27th, 2009
68
Peak Oil Update
by dumpthemonarchy | Jul 16th, 2008
21
Peak Oil update
by dumpthemonarchy | Nov 27th, 2007
6
Peak oil.
by Alberta'sfinest | Feb 8th, 2006
22
Peak oil news update
by dumpthemonarchy | Dec 23rd, 2005
no new posts