Peak Oil - Okay, I'm terrified.

[Shoedogg]

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I can't even think straight.
I don't know how to digest this.

[Indiana_Dem]

1. Don't feel alone!

Maybe it won't be as terrible as they say but even if it's not it sure sounds like we're in for some perilous times don't you think?

[Sliverofhope]

74. One idea on that website that needs more support

is to google-bomb 'peak oil'. The only places you can find information, save for a few books, is the internet. By searching for peak oil on yahoo and google, we can perhaps bring the information to a wider audience. Plus it takes so little effort.

Do a yahoo search

Do a google search

[Shoedogg]

104. Guess what?

I've been at work telling people about this.

No one wants to hear it. They think this is another one of "Shoe's nutty ideas."

I can't even get people to READ the information.

Unless we can get the general population screaming about this, we're definitely done for.

(The most infuriating part - one person actually told me that since population is estimated to go from 6.5 billion to 500 million that that must mean that the Americans will be among that 500 million. After talking to people about this this moring I've decided we'll get EXACTLY what we deserve.)

[Indiana_Dem]

148. no doubt, no doubt, my friend.

It doesn't surprise me in the least!
I do have one friend who is now responsive to what I said and they listened and are interested!!!! It's a wonderful feeling to tell somebody who "gets it"!

[keithyboy]

213. Before 'peak oil' there was "Limits to Growth" and now there is

"Beyond Limits to Growth"

If you get a chance read both.
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Limits+to+Growth&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D924bb016005e110e%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DLimits%2Bto%2BGrowth%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.context.org%252FICLIB%252FIC32%252FMeadows.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex2&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.context.org%2FICLIB%2FIC32%2FMeadows.htm

Here is an excerpt for Beyond Limits to Growth:

"Unlike most scientific books about our relationship to the environment, Beyond the Limits is willing to break several taboos. For one, it is willing to be optimistic - to say that it is possible to overcome the manifold obstacles between here and sustainability. For another, it is willing to use words like "love" and "revolution," meaning by the latter not a violent uprising but an historical transformation, not unlike that from agricultural to industrial civilization.

What are the elements of the sustainability revolution? They go beyond good information, new technologies, democratic participation, and sound policy. The authors close their book with a description of five "tools" that are generally not mentioned in most supposedly "serious" studies of what we must do: visioning, networking, truth-telling, learning, and - as they explain in this excerpt - loving."

Notice the "truth-telling" thing...boy are we in trouble?

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Follow my link(s)

Learn more, get involved, do what you can.

[Indiana_Dem]

7. Impressive looking website. Is it yours?

[everythingsxen]

3. Been there- Read it - Still not convinced

It might be true. Might not. Has anyone run this through Snopes out of curiousity?

At any rate if you are honestly concerned, I say you do what I have advised others to do... look into getting some land in the hinterlands of Canada or somewhere equally remote, build a nice compund that is easily defended from roving hordes of psychotic people and is self-sustaining. Horde gold and silver.

In fact, anyone who is really all about this should start PMing me or Emailing me; I have been waiting my whole life for society to collapse. "Bring it on" :D

[mike1963]

5. I don't think this is the sort of thing Snopes has any expertise on. I do

have some, being in the 'awl bidness' for 50 years. The oil gauge is just about on "E". But if you're older than ...oh, about 35, you don't really need to worry about it (but if you have kids, some trepidation is definitely in order)

"hordes of psychotic people" is proper, but concerning gold & silver, "hoard" is the right word.
;-)

[earthside]

21. Disagree

I certainly disagree with you about the time frame for the impact of the 'peak' oil crisis.

My indepth study of this issue leads me to believe that world production probably peaked in 2000. We are now on the production plateau. With consumption rising at faster than expected rates (the booming Chinese and Indian economies being the main factor), and indications that Saudi Arabian oil fields are beginning to experience some production declines ... I think we will begin the downward slope sometime around 2007.

There are all kinds of geo-political indications that this is so --- ie., the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq; the Bush threatening of Iran; covert Bush regime involvement in the unrest in Venezuela. And, of course, the faster pace of ups and downs in gasoline pricing. On and on.

And, unfortunately, it is probably too late to do very much about this. Replacing our petroleum-based infrastructure would take twenty years ... and we do not even have an energy source identified with which to replace oil.

My advice? Have plenty of ammunition and guns so you can protect yourself and your family; acquire some gold and silver for trading purposes when the crash hits; have plans to lay-in an emergency food supply for brown-outs and black-outs coming in the next three to five years. Vote against Bush, agitate for a radical energy reconfiuration. And have an escape plan for getting away from urban areas.

Yes, it is a bleak picture, and remember that everyone driving a giant SUV has sucked away your future ... don't hurt those people -- but let them know how greedy, selfish and ignorant they are.

[Indiana_Dem]

23. Welcome to DU earthside!

:hi:

Thanks for your input!

[mike1963]

33. Uh, I don't think you're really disagreeing with me.........???

I just said the gauge is on "E" and that's what you said too. (I have plenty of ammo anyway, and mechanisms into which to put it...and realize that pisses off a lot of Democrats - tough titty, people.)

I'm pretty much an old phart, but as long as I'm able, I'll fight the goddamn fascists.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. I don't think Snopes passes judgement on science.

Did he cover "evolution" yet?

[Indiana_Dem]

9. Tell me about snopes?

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Snopes specializes in debunking "Urban Legends"

http://www.snopes.com/

[Shoedogg]

12. Snopes is great!

www.snopes.com

Debunks urban legends.
Researches various Internet rumors.
Etc, etc...

I love it.

[Indiana_Dem]

16. well i think we should run it through snopes then.

I don't like feeling like I did when I was little and I thought Bigfoot, ufos, the Bermuda Triangle, and the Lochness monster were all real!!! But many of the references to major magazines and the like seem very credible! These guys SOUND like real geologists. Didn't NPR have a program on this?

[kalian]

47. Peak oil is NOT an "urban legend"....

Get a clue...

[rman]

76. why horde gold and silver?

you can't eat it, there'll be little need for jewlery, it'll be worthless once the global economy has collapsed unless you plan on producing some high tech stuff that requires those raw materials (ie electronics). or would you horde those materials in preparation of the return of corporate capitalism?

[mikehiggins]

160. You'd be better off hordeing weapons and ammo, not to mention

water purification equipment.

I have a friend who has been doing this since the survivalist stuff started back decades ago, or at least claims to have been doing so. It isn't that he's paranoid or anything, but he does have faith in the inevitable collapse of modern technological society.

He hopes it doesn't happen in his lifetime but wants to be prepared if it does.

Combine Peak Oil with possible weather changes the Pentagon has been talking about and it looks an awful lot like our present day way of life is about to crap out.

But the earth abides. Reduce population to 500 million? You have to wonder if you'll be one of that number. Also, if you'd really want to be one.

Still, life without cable tv might not be so bad. At least we wouldn't have to listen to pollsters and pundits anymore.

[Layman]

197. Gold Historically Speaking

As my name implies I'm only a layman but if I have learned one thing perusing the 321gold.com, gold-eagle.com et.al. I have learned one thing. Precious metals have endured through out the centuries and fiat currencies go the of way.. the way of fiat currencies. They never last and gold is forever.

[lastknowngood]

4. Reality bits!! Ignorance is bliss! were in deeeeep do do.

n/t

[Deja Q]

8. Final Exit...

Let's face it. We now know for real our lives will end.

We're all in the same boat as cancer and AIDS patients.

Do we spread the word to others or do we spare them the same awful feelings by not telling them? I want to spread the word, in hopes that the commonfolk uprise against the wealthy elite (who wilfully chose to keep the status quo as it was because it was more profitable for them) after the crash hits. On the other hand, people have a tendency to ignore facts. They don't like abrupt change and they don't like being scared. Such people trying to break the news would be seen as "Chicken Littles", even though the sky really is falling.

On the other hand, there's the book "Final Exit". Get the 3rd edition and the needed supplies and wait until the very last moment. While the thought alone is disturbing, read http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (all of it) and then decide which is better: A quick painless death, or a slow one with a vain hope that things will get better. Wake up, they won't. Not once the crash hits. When Jimmy Carter said in 1980 to prepare for the end of the oil age in 2005, it didn't help his re-election campaign. And, back then, there was a chance. Did somebody inflate the #s of available oil at the time? We know that the Left says "prepare and shift". The 'Right' (ala Dickless Cheney) say without passion or compassion "By some estimates, there will be an average of two percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day." You tell me who'd do what. Carter and liberals would likely have spared society the upcoming agony. The repukes will just exploit NAFTA against the countries stupid enough to sign into that exortion of a plan (which openly states that the US can take their oil if there's a crisis), if not nuke everybody else to get their oil.

[Indiana_Dem]

19. I don't want to tell my teenager if this is true...

I don't want her to feel like she doesn't have any future with hope. I'm afraid she might quit trying to excel or it could have some subconscious affect on her. Most people just don't want to think about it because they can't handle it. (Remember Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth!") And if it is true, I'm sure those of us who will confront the truth still need to break away from it from time to time for the sake of sanity!

[arcos]

10. You are lucky...

you found out in 2004... you have time to prepare yourself and your loved ones!

[BlueEyedSon]

14. We've got 5 years.

Pushing thru the market square, so many mothers sighing
News had just come over, we had five years left to cry in
News guy wept and told us, earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet, then I knew he was not lying
I heard telephones, opera house, favourite melodies
I saw boys, toys electric irons and t.v.’s
My brain hurt like a warehouse, it had no room to spare
I had to cram so many things to store everything in there
And all the fat-skinny people, and all the tall-short people
And all the nobody people, and all the somebody people
I never thought I’d need so many people

A girl my age went off her head, hit some tiny children
If the black hadn’t a-pulled her off, I think she would have killed them
A soldier with a broken arm, fixed his stare to the wheels of a cadillac
A cop knelt and kissed the feet of a priest, and a queer threw up at the sight of that

I think I saw you in an ice-cream parlour, drinking milk shakes cold and long
Smiling and waving and looking so fine, don’t think
You knew you were in this song
And it was cold and it rained so I felt like an actor
And I thought of ma and I wanted to get back there
Your face, your race, the way that you talk
I kiss you, you’re beautiful, I want you to walk

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got
We’ve got five years, what a surprise
Five years, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got
We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got
We’ve got five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

David Bowie, 1972

[maggrwaggr]

27. I learned about this in 1980

it made me so depressed I thought about slitting my wrists.

Since then I've had a pretty good life.

You have to have faith. Without faith we'd all be living in mud huts.

I have a young son and I hope he has a good life, too.

I don't know what's gonna happen. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.

I like to think this is one of mankind's greatest challenges.

[stepnw1f]

13. Couldn't this just be Bull? It is an election year, ya know?

[arcos]

15. this has been known for several years now... n/t

[maggrwaggr]

40. yes, since the 70's at the very least.

I learned about it in 1980, mainly from books that were written in the 70's.

Carter knew about it and tried to do something about it. He was called "negative" and voted out of office.

Americans do NOT want to hear that they can't have something.

[struggle4progress]

53. Known since early 60's or before

In early 70's many of my college friends expected a production peak sometime between 1990 and 2010 and expected US to go to war in Mideast as consequence. Carter did indeed raise the issue, and mainstream government officials thought about it. Lots of negative propaganda in the late 70s about this sort of "negative thinking." By early 80s, the ruling class line was that the free market and the inexorable march of science would solve the problem, so "not to worry." What to think/do? Nothing's changed, so seriously push for a familiar agenda: energy conservation, alternative energy, public transportation. No reason to think we couldn't work around it, with intelligence and dedication; every reason to think that if we do nothing, we're ultimately heading heading towards a brutal division between the haves and the have-nots.

[maggrwaggr]

67. and what do we have to show for it? Hummers!

And laws on the books that says you can write off the entire cost of a vehicle if it's over some huge road weight.

Things have gotten worse instead of better.

People have their head even deeper in the sand.

[struggle4progress]

109. Well viva la lucha

[ellie]

149. Do you remember that

print ad from the 70s-80s where a woman was standing with her baby next to her car on a lonely stretch of road and there was no one else out there? The text said something about using up the last tank of gas and where will you be? I remember it really brought it home for me then. I did a search on the web and no one saved it. I would like to see it again.

[JaySherman]

17. Yeah, it's scary, but I'm a bit skeptical.

This reminds me of all that Y2K talk that also predicted the end of civilization when the lights went out.

I find the idea of global resource wars slightly amusing, because no one mentions what we're going to build and power all those weapons and nukes with when the oil is gone? If it's mentioned and I missed it, sorry. Haven't finished the whole thing yet.

Ominous? Yes. Definitely something to be concerned about but not to go wetting our pants over. Just all the more reason for us each to do our parts to conserve. We know that the oil is going to run out soon, but I for one don't buy into these apocalyptic predictions yet. People have been predicting the end of civilization practically since its origins. Who knows? What no one is bothering to bring up is the alternate outcome. The positive, hopeful possibility that this coming crisis could be the event that finally causes humanity to get its shit together, and sets us on the right path at last.

Just my thoughts.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. There's no hope so long as the world is dominated

by petrochemical gunslingers determined to secure what remains for themselves.

Their thinking, perhaps, isn't that there is too little oil in the world; rather, there are too many people. At least, people whose ever-increasing demand for petroleum runs counter to US strategic interests.

I don't know how anyone could be amused at the prospect of a global resource war, since it should be evident we're already living it. A couple of good links:

"Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World's Oil" by Michael Klare.
http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics.html

"The Fuel That Fires Political Hotspots" by Colin Campbell
http://www.bpamoco.org.uk/industry/02-05-17thes.htm

[JaySherman]

29. But could this also be what finally breaks the stranglehold

of the oil barons? Strip away their oil and thus their money, and what do they have? We have the numbers. Not saying it's going to be all pretty. But if we're going to look at the dark side, we have to consider the bright side as well. PhD's, scientists, and experts aren't always right. Remember, governments actually invested big bucks into Y2K research based on published reports. Last I checked my old 486/33 box was still working.

We should take it seriously enough to start seriously doing something about it. The volume of published reports and where they're coming from is a hopeful sign that maybe people are starting to wake up. It's definitely time to get our butts in gear. But from what this report is saying, we might as well just give up now and wait for the end.

I don't find the idea of resource war itself amusing at all, but I laugh at the fact that tmk no one putting forth these ominous portents of doom is bothering to mention what resources we're going to fight those wars with. Break out the swords and dust off those suits of armor, folks. The medieval revivalists, Rennies, and SCA'ers are going to have a leg up on all of us :D.

[Minstrel Boy]

39. You're optimistic, and that's a good thing.

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I don't hold out much hope for the lightbulb to click on above most peoples' heads until it's much too late, and I don't expect anything more than fear and violence to result. And the fascist state we see under construction now in the US is being built, I believe, with the intention of managing the coming chaos.

What will fuel the resource wars? I have no doubt that the very last drop of petroleum will be spent powering a military vehicle. But before it comes to that, I'm pretty confident we'll virtually eradicate ourselves in a spasm of fear and self-contempt.

[JaySherman]

61. I do think if we let it get to that point...

We will have reaped what we've sown and gotten what we deserved. Good riddance.

I'd just feel sorry for all the children who wouldn't deserve any of it.

[kalian]

51. Sorry....

we ALL lose...

[JaySherman]

60. Like I said

Might as well give up now then. Why fight G.W.? Why fight for anything at all :shrug:? There's no hope. We're all doomed.

/sarcasm

[Shoedogg]

98. But...

"I don't find the idea of resource war itself amusing at all, but I laugh at the fact that tmk no one putting forth these ominous portents of doom is bothering to mention what resources we're going to fight those wars with. Break out the swords and dust off those suits of armor, folks."

But they ARE mentioning it. The resource war will be fought with the rapidly depleting cheap oil that remains. And then with handguns and rifles. And then with sticks and stones.

[Shoedogg]

97. They do...

"I find the idea of global resource wars slightly amusing, because no one mentions what we're going to build and power all those weapons and nukes with when the oil is gone? If it's mentioned and I missed it, sorry. Haven't finished the whole thing yet."

It is mentioned. The thing is that the oil won't be *gone*, it will just be incredibly expensive to recover once we hit a certain point in the downslope. Up until that point, much of the remaining cheap oil will be used up by the war machine in a vain attempt to control the flow of what is left.

"What no one is bothering to bring up is the alternate outcome. The positive, hopeful possibility that this coming crisis could be the event that finally causes humanity to get its shit together, and sets us on the right path at last."

Actually, many are hopeful about what may come out of the crisis in the long term. But in the short term, BILLIONS will die.

[whistle]

18. Exactly, thanks for the links...

...I took a drive around my neighborhood (Orlando FL) because within a six block square near my house, there are 11 service stations/super gas up places. The prices as of 8:15PM tonight were unleaded regular $1.69.9 to $1.72.9 per gallon: unleaded (the higher stuff I never buy) $1.77.9 to $1.82.9; and unleaded premium (that I should use but don't) $1.85.9 to $1.93.9 per gallon. The price of regular at Christmas time was $1.43.9 almost everywhere here in the area. When I filled up at the beginning of the week I actually paid $1.73.9 for my regular at my usual station and the fill for the first time on my car ever took exactly $30.00. I have been in shock most of the week and it looks like that's where it will stay. The reports are that the summer gas prices in Florida will hit an all time high at over $2.00 per gallon. Now I moved here in December 1971 and guess what gas was selling for in Orlando at that time.....take a guess........wrong!

It was $0.179 a gallon. That's correct. In just over thirty three years it's gone up ten fold. You kids when you hit my age just may see gasoline for $17.999 per gallon, not barrel, that's per gallon!!! What is Bush telling you, he whats you to have the same future as we have. You may have to get used to burning dog doody in your transport vehicles. Oh, I drive the same size automobile today as I did in 1971, same weight, almost the same dimensions, tire size, horsepower, same six cylinders, everything. I got 22 miles per gallon highway then, 27 mpg today. I paid $2,679.00 brand new off the lot then, this latest purchase $30,979.00. My car then was build in Flint Michigan. The car I own today was build in Japan, but if I bought a car with a Detroit label, it would be 60% imported parts. In 30 years do you think you can afford a car at $309,790.00? And where do you think that car will be built, you got it, Afghanistan. It will be running on Opium oil extract which will be so cheap they'll be using it as rocket fuel to the other limits of the solar system. As for fossil fuels, your kids will be sniffing the stuff to get high. How's that for a Bush-it vision. He says he knows what he wants for America. That's great. Why won't GW let the rest of us in on it? x(

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

166. Inflation adjusted cost of gasoline over the last 50 years:

http://ibs.howstuffworks.com/ibs/mia/gas-price1.htm

Historical Gas Prices*
Year Price Per Gallon
1950 $1.91
1955 $1.85
1960 $1.79
1965 $1.68
1970 $1.59
1975 $1.80
1980 $2.59
1985 $1.90
1990 $1.51
1995 $1.28
2001 $1.66
*Prices adjusted for inflation
Source: U.S. DOE


Was poking around and found this. Was surprised.

[BlueStateGirl]

22. This guy claims 2056 as the run out date...(link)

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#c

[BlueEyedSon]

25. There is no "run out date"

There will always be oil in the earth. Believe it or not, we are going to intentionally leave it there. We will get to the point that it takes more than 1 barrel of oil (in equivalent energy) to get 1 barrel of oil out of the ground.

Kinda dumb, right? Would you pay $1.05 for a dollar bill?

[kalian]

46. No such thing as a "run out" date....

Peak oil is NOT about running out of oil. People...READ up on peak oil
please before casting your opinions out into the wind.
The whole issue is about CHEAP OIL...which sustains our civilization.

:eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

62. This guy (David Deming) is a tool

Nearly every point he makes is a talking point, not a petrological point. Here's some examples:

• He refers to "exhausting" the oil supply. That can't happen. A lot of oil will never get pumped because it will require more energy to take it out of the ground -- and fighting gravity to do it -- than it would be worth to sell.

• He makes his case on the "we have always found more oil" argument. But our oil discovery rate has plunged since the mid 1970s.

• He cites several instances where warnings have been wrong, but he carefully omits the details that show them to be not-so-wrong at all.

• He criticizes M. King Hubbert's work for underestimating the supplies of crude oil in nature. But Hubbert's work did not rely on those figures staying static. In fact, all of Hubbert's predictions have been correct to within 24 months.

• He assumes all shale oil will be recoverable, but unless a radical new low-energy process is found for separating the oil from its shale matrix, we can kiss 99% of that oil goodbye for reasons of physics -- if it takes 100 calories of heat to extract 5 calories of fuel, what's the point?

• He uses a 1.4% per annum fuel demand growth figure. The real figure is twice that -- 2.8% -- and even so, he forsees 2056 as the date we "run out", an absurdity which I've already discussed.

• OK, he is correct that innovation is what is needed. But we also needed to start back in the 1970s. Instead of innovating, we have been mocking alternative-energy scientists as "tree huggers" and defunding their work.

The guy is a tool of the oil industry. For a scientist to make so many lame, inane points that an idiotic lay person (like me) can easily rebut should be a scandal. But we have bigger things to worry about, like Janet Jackson's right nipple.

I don't agree that the world is coming to an end. But I do think that we will pay a far higher price now that we have wasted 25 years we should have used developing biofuels, solar energy, high-efficiency industrial processes and domestic appliances, ultralight fiberglas-and-compsite automobiles, and modernized dirigibles.

We're left with five to ten years to do a half-assed job simply to keep America from becoming a wasteland during the period 2010-2040. Add to this the increasing likelihood that we've triggered (or at least hastened) the onset of a new ice age.

The installation of King George was, in my mind, a kind of an end-game for the current business regime. The day they realized that Iraq did not sit on top of 5 billion barrels of oil, but a scant 300 million, was the day that they realized they lost.

OPEC is now under pressure to cut back so they will still have marketable oil in three years, ALL oil reserves estimates from OPEC were cut in half just six months ago, and we have been incredibly lucky in the last two winters with our supply of liquified natural gas.

Remember what happened to NYC and much of the Northeast late last summer? Get ready for a lot more of it.

--bkl

[Minstrel Boy]

70. I'm glad I stayed up late enough to read this.

Thanks.

[OhioStateProgressive]

150. well, Oil is constantly regenerated...we can't really run out(nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

154. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Regenerated from what and how, exactly? Do you know anything at all about the mechanics of fossil fuel formation and petroleum geology? It would seem not.

There is a finite and limited supply, because what constitutes oil and natural gas are the remains of algae, plants and animals that lived between 140 and 600 million years ago. The geological and natural conditions for oil formation are not currently present. We are drawing on sources which have formed over hundreds of millions of years. Once they're gone, that's it.

The chief proponent of the theory that oil is "constantly regenerated" and abiotic ion nature is one Thomas Gold, who is eminently unqualified and shouldn't be taken at face value. (Gold is an astronomer by training, not a mining engineer or petroleum geologist.) It's rather absurd to propound a theory which is discredited by the vast majority of persons who actually have expertise in the subject.

[OhioStateProgressive]

162. not true

New oil IS regenerated. Algae and plant matter is still formulating into Oil.

I did not say it would regenerate faster than we pull it out.

[rockymountaindem]

24. Chill folks...

First of all, hydrogen (from what I know) is an ok fuel replacement for oil. Did you see that 60 Minutes thing on the hydrogen car? I don't know what this guy is saying? That car ran on hydrogen without any major modifications in design. It's not like it had to carry 500 gallons of fuel just to cruise around. Furthermore, they mentioned that the hydrogen we need for that (tritium) can be extracted from ordinary seawater. After all, Hydrogen puts the H in H2O. I don't know how much electricity they would need for that process (electrolysis, the splitting of water into its component chemicals. it's how they get oxygen on nuclear subs), but at least we could use coal to get that done. Thank God we've got plenty of coal (so does Russia) and it's easy to extract. My mom told me the other day that in California they are constructing a "hydrogen highway" with hydrogen fueling stations to be opened every 20 miles in seven years. The car companies say it's not problem for them to start making hydrogen cars. After all, GM will still make money off the cars, GWB just won't make money off the oil (that greasy creep).

Furthermore, about the petrochemicals and plastics...

The oil that we extract from the ground isn't as simple as just "oil". "Oil" is actually a conglomeration of lots of different substances which can be used for different things. At the refinery, the oil is boiled in a complex distilling process to seperate all the parts so they can be put to use. Some becomes butane, propane, kerosene, and lots of other things. Some even becomes a solid coal-like substance known as "coke". The gas that you put in your car isn't the same stuff that they use to make plastic cups, lenses, medicines etc. It all comes from the same source, but they are different chemicals. Putting gas in your car doesn't reduce the amount of the stuff they have to make petrochemicals.

I'm not saying that peak oil isn't something to worry about, it certainly is a grave issue. However, the situation is not as hopeless as some would have you believe. That being said, I think we must break our dependence on oil ASAP for environmental and political reasons. However, I doubt that "peak oil" is the end of modern civilization.

[BlueEyedSon]

28. Sorry, hydrogen is not a source of energy.

It is a STORAGE MECHANISM. You need to get the energy from somewhere to make the hydrogen (liberating it from water, for example). As you point out, electricity, derived from coal, could be the energy source. However mining and burning coal is an environmental disaster. The C02 and particulates are much worse than with oil.

Yes, coal and natural gas will peak later than oil but they are actually not as high a quality energy source (energy per pound, ease of transport, etc) as oil. Even nuclear energy will have a peak since the amount of fuel (uranium) on the planet is finite (ignoring the issues of risk and waste disposal).

Ultimately, the answer is conservation and renewables (solar, wind, tidal, biomass).

[nefarious]

36. Hydrogen is a chemical fuel

By that logic, all chemical fuels are storage mechanisms.

Why not use renewable energy sources to separate hydrogen from water?

And yes, several auto companies have prototyped hydrogen powered vehicles. BMW has had a fleet of 750iL sedans running taxi/ limousine service successfully at several large German city airports since 1998.

The problem everyone will see with hydrogen, is that the existing chemical fuel processors will attempt to monopolize that industry also, as they are fond of their revenue stream. Didn't W* propose something like $10B in federal research grants for alternative fuel research in his '03 SOTU address? (probably only to be handed out the large oil companies to accomplish the monopolization goal)

[BlueEyedSon]

43. Yup, oil itself (and every fossil fuel) is a storage mechanism.

What are they storing, you may ask....

Sunlight.

Plants and critters lived, ate the sunlight, then died and decomposed. Ba da bing, petrochemical hydrocarbons.

(Not addressing the commercialization issues.)

[maggrwaggr]

32. I don't mean to dis you but

let me get this straight ....

you want to burn coal to provide the energy to make hydrogen to run cars?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ......

I don't think that would be a terribly efficient solution to say the least.

The fact of the matter is we're all gonna have to go back to an agricultural way of life. Better learn how to grow your own food. Yes, the Amish are gonna be the most advanced people in America pretty soon.

[Spider Jerusalem]

34. A few points...

first, hydrogen isn't an energy source. It is an energy carrier. The hydrogen, extracted from water by electricity, carries the energy used in the process of its extraction. It is, therefore, due to the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation), a net energy sink (more energy is required for the extraction process than is produced when it is used as fuel).

Second, use of coal as an energy source for the electrolytic extraction of hydrogen is NOT a good idea. Coal is an extremely polluting fuel; large-scale use of coal as other fossil fuels are depleted would result in far greater emissions of greenhouse gases, and quite possibly lead to catastrophically accelerated changes in global climate.

Third, as you say, gasoline and petrochemicals all come from the same source. Now, are you aware of what the current industrial usage rate of those petrochemicals is? The sheer quantity of plastics, inks, dyes, and other petrochemical products produced necessitates a constant resource base. Just because the thermal cracking process makes a lot of different things doesn't mean we're not going to be totally screwed once we run out of crude petroleum to fractionate.

Modern civilisation is, essentially, built on affordable petroleum and its byproducts. Civilisation as we know it may not end due to the peak and decline of oil production, but it is certainly going to undergo rapid and drastic change.

[maggrwaggr]

35. well put

If I hadn't had that vicodin about an hour ago, I would have attempted something along those lines. :)

[rockymountaindem]

37. Link

http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp

[kalian]

48. Dude....yes, hydrogen can generate energy....

but you need ENERGY to convert that hydrogen. What part of this
don't you understand?! :eyes:

[rockymountaindem]

63. ok loozers (just kidding)

I'm willing to admit my mistakes. Saying that we could use coal to electrolize the water wasn't the best idea. That's why I'm a history major. While we could use scrubbers and low-sulfur coal, that wouldn't be the best solution. I present to you the technical expertise of the volks who brought you the Fokker D.VII engine (and that was one sweet plane)...

http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/nav/index.html?http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/8_science_mobility/8_3_mobilitaet_umwelt/8_3_1_energie.shtml?8_3

So, the sun radiates enough energy in one hour then we use in a year. We can use solar and wind energy to electrolize the hydrogen we need. We could use some of that money we pour into useless projects to build giant arrays in the Sahara, then use the water from the Mediterranean. Before you respond with "hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source", I contend that BMW knows more about that than you or I.

Anyway, just thought I'd submit this for your consideration.

[arcos]

84. "We"....

"we" is the USA? or "we" is humanity?

If it is humanity, are you sure those countries would agree to share it with everyone?? Just like oil...

[rockymountaindem]

108. "We" refers to humanity.

If the Sahara desert doesn't appeal to you for geopolitical reasons, there are alternatives, such as the Nazca plain of Peru, Baja California, the Great Sandy Desert in Austrailia, or the Namib desert in Namibia. All three locations provide extremely arid and sunny desert conditions right up to the coast. I would think that certainly Austrailia and Mexico would be willing to jump on board this program.

[Donkeyboy75]

179. Your first point is not true at all.

Research is going on to find more energy-efficient means of producing hydrogen, but that isn't even the point. Water in and of itself contains energy, just as any chemical compound does. The reason hydrogen is the big talk now is that there are better ways of harnessing this energy.

[terisel]

26. Peak Oil scares are absurd...Animal Waste is Fertilizer

That article is illogical.

Consider the following:

The human race has been around for a long time----oil refining has been around a very short time. We survived and often prospered without it.....non-mechanized Amish farms are more productive than corporate farms.....animal waste is fertilizer....places that killed off their other animals used human fertilizer and survived and increased their population... the population explosion of the recent centuries occurred not in industrialized areas but in places not dependent upon oil. Scarcity spurs invention....


I don't intend to suggest that people don't behave foolishly and squander resources and impoverish themselves in the process and then start fights over scarce resources. They do.

The great North American forests were wasted and the great South American forests are being destroyed. (whatever happened to the Cedars of Lebanon)? --was there really a great forest there once upon a time?

,,,,but I think the Peak oil scare is a crock. .....Fresh water is a necessity for humans but oil isn't.

[Indiana_Dem]

31. Welcome to DU terisel!

:hi:
Thanks for your viewpoint, too!

Yes, fresh water will become a concern, too!

[mike1963]

41. No, oil is not a necessity for survival, but it for goddamn sure is for

the 'lifestyle' we have grown to depend on. The computer you are using would not exist were it not for the plastics derived from petrochemicals. Oh, it might be possible to build one with wood and metal (oh, wait, you already admitted the forests have been decimated),
and the metals which are refined by using oil derivatives would be virtually impossible to make either. Hmm.

And your stupendously idiotic claim that the Amish farmers are more "productive" is laughable if you're thinking in terms of efficiency.
Do you have any idea how much acreage is required to produce edible plants for 1, 10, or 100 people?

And producing "animal waste" requires the "animals" to have something to eat and convert into "waste."

Maybe we can all just eat our own shit and everything will be wonderful.
:eyes:

[strategery blunder]

57. When it comes to farming, you can measure efficiency in 2 ways

1. In terms of crop yield per acre.
2. In terms of crop yield per unit of labor.

Clearly, large agribusiness farms are more productive in terms of land use, but there is a tradeoff: the huge energy required in mechanization of the farm (think the petroleum products in fertilizer, tractor use, harvester use, etc). So much energy is burned that it takes more energy to grow food as agribusiness does than can be obtained by eating it. Oil makes up the deficit.

The Amish, however, might not be terribly efficient in terms of land use, but they are far more efficient in terms of labor. Plant seeds, wait for them to grow, harvest by hand. The Amish can grow crops using LESS energy than can be obtained by eating the harvest. If you're thinking, "Wait! This violates the laws of thermodynamics!" well, photosynthesis makes up the difference. And the Amish don't have to put any energy into the Sun to get it to burn.

[kayell]

172. Actually, you may have that somewhat backwards

1. Crop Yield per Acre - Actually small, intensively managed farms such as the Amish have almost always produce MORE per acre.
2. Crop yield per unit of labor - is actually usually considered the measure of human labor. At this agribusiness farms are more "efficient" They produce more product per man-hour.
3. Crop yield per unit of energy is what you are refering to as yield per unit of labor. At this the Amish win again.

So the Amish farms (and generally most intensively worked production systems) are more efficient in terms of yield per acre and yield per unit of energy (although to be certain of this, you would need to do some calculations on the kilocalories consumed by the human and animal labor), but less efficient in terms of requiring high labor input.

Industrialized nations have steadily moved in the direction of producing more products (of all kinds, not just agricultural) per unit of human labor. This has happened by substituting machine labor (fueled by chemical energy) for human energy. Many would argue that as productivity in terms of quantity has gone up, quality has often decreased. Compare that to yield per acre.

[EV1Ltimm]

42. i think what most people are afraid of is...

their credit score, scooting around town on a bike and parting with their tv.

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. Actually, modern fertilisers are ammonia-based...

and the ammonia comes from natural gas (which is predicted to peak not long after oil).

Animal waste (and also human waste...it's known as "night soil" and they've been using it as fertiliser in Asia for millenia) is NOT as effective a fertiliser as the chemical fertilisers. Chemical fertilisers and pesticides are responsible for the jump in agricultural output post-1940; they are, in a very real sense, responsible for the increase in global population from 1.5 to 6+ billion.

When agriculture has to fall back on traditional farming methods due to exhaustion of the resources required for our current techniques, the result is, I'm afraid, inevitably going to be a sharp decline in crop yield, widespread famine, and the death of many millions of not billions of people. It is unavoidable. We cannot stop it.

[kalian]

45. You don't know jack....

sorry pal, but its quite obvious that you're making an UNINFORMED
opinion.
READ up on Peak Oil and then come back here to debate.
Where do you think fresh, decontaminated water comes from...? From
processing plants! How do these plants work...? With energy...
Where does this energy come from...? Yup...OIL.

Get a clue...

[rman]

78. how can you deny absence of oil will make a huge difference?

it'll be quite different without electricity, without plastics, without factories, without large scale transportation - especially since we are not prepared.
I'm not saying a significant number of people won't survive. we can live that way - but i'll be very different, and we better prepare for it.

[zelda7743]

152. You obviously don't live in Hawaii

We get most of our food shipped in....if we had to live off of what could be grown here, most of the population would die off.

[Minstrel Boy]

30. "Olduvai Gorge" theory: the life expectancy of technological civilization

is approximately 100 years.

A technological civilization cannot outlast its energy resource base. Once this resource is spent, technological civilization will be forever beyond our grasp.

From "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge" by Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D.:

Although all primary sources of energy are important, the Olduvai theory postulates that electricity is the quintessence of Industrial Civilization. World energy production per capita increased strongly from 1945 to its all-time peak in 1979. Then from 1979 to 1999 - for the first time in history - it decreased from 1979 to 1999 at a rate of 0.33%/year (the Olduvai 'slope', Figure 4). Next from 2000 to 2011, according to the Olduvai schema, world energy production per capita will decrease by about 0.70%/year (the 'slide'). Then around year 2012 there will be a rash of permanent electrical blackouts - worldwide. These blackouts, along with other factors, will cause energy production per capita by 2030 to fall to 3.32 b/year, the same value it had in 1930. The rate of decline from 2012 to 2030 is 5.44%/year (the Olduvai 'cliff'). Thus, by definition, the duration of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years.

The Olduvai 'slide' from 2001 to 2011 (Figure 4) may resemble the "Great Depression" of 1929 to 1939: unemployment, breadlines, and homelessness. As for the Olduvai 'cliff' from 2012 to 2030 - I know of no precedent in human history.

Governments have lost respect. World organizations are ineffective. Neo-tribalism is rampant. The population is over six billion and counting. Global warming and emerging viruses are headlines. The reliability of electric power networks is falling. And the instant the power goes out, you are back in the Dark Age.

In 1979 I concluded, "If God made the earth for human habitation, then He made it for the Stone Age mode of habitation." The Olduvai theory is thinkable.

http://www.oilcrisis.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm

Also see "The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age":

Back in 1989 I became deeply depressed when I concluded that our greatest scientific achievements will soon be forgotten and our most cherished monuments will crumble to dust. But more so, I knew that my children would feel the pressure, and will likely suffer. That really hurt.

In time however, my perspective changed. Now I just treat the Olduvai theory like any other scientific theory. Nothing personal. Each year, I gather the data. Update Figure 2. And watch the theory unfold. Let the chips fall. What else?

Still, the impending Post-Industrial Stone Age is a tragedy because it really isn't inevitable. There's no absolute reason why we couldn't live in material sufficiency on this planet for millions of years. But prudence isn't our forte. "Even our success becomes failure." And, in a way, it's not our fault. Long ago Natural Selection dealt us a bad hand—we're sexually prolific, tribal, short-term and self-centered. And after thousands of years of trying, Culture hasn't changed that. And there is no sign that She will.

Backward to the future. Forward to the past. Almost perfect symmetry.

http://dieoff.org/page125.htm

[maggrwaggr]

38. interesting stuff. One thing I haven't seen addressed here yet

is the massive inflation that is due from the price of oil (which is the basis of all production) skyrocketing.

Get ready for prices to go absolutely nuts.

Remember 1973? (I do). The price of oil suddenly went up, and so did everything else. Worst inflation in America that I've ever seen. Carter took the blame, even though he's the only guy who's ever addressed the problem and tried to do something about it.

A really interesting investment newsletter I get says to buy as much gold as you can. They're predicting gold at over $1,000 an ounce in the not-too-distant future. Of course, those dollars won't be worth that much, so it's kind of a wash. But only if you hold the gold.

The government will try to lie about it as long as they can. They want to scare us about terror, but they sure don't want to scare us about this.

[BlueEyedSon]

49. Close your eyes, now imagine a coal-powered airplane.

Now - maybe - you are starting to appreciate peak oil.

[kalian]

50. No...how about....

imagine that solar scientists discover that the Sun will be "going
out" in less than 72 hours +/- 36 hours...
Same effect on civilization....

[BlueEyedSon]

52. Not exactly.

[BlueEyedSon]

96. *kick* for the morning people

[leftistagitator]

54. You know, this has been predicted before

For over 200 years now experts in the energy production have warned that at the then present rate of technology usable oil would run out within 50 years. Of course, technology has continued to increase and so far we've avoided catastrophe. I think we need a Manhattan project to finally crack the code on free energy production, or at least to find some alternative forms of energy, even if it costs a trillion dollars.

[kalian]

55. Too funny....

the only problem with your post is...oil has only been around
for about 100 years...and has only been used extensively during
the past 80 or so...


200 years... LOL.

[leftistagitator]

58. Opps, youre right

meant coal, sorry. But my point still applies

[Minstrel Boy]

56. The first commercial oil well wasn't drilled until 1859.

Until the 1950s, discoveries of huge oil reserves were the order of the day.

But discoveries of new reserves have been sharply declining for 50 years. This despite advancement in technologies for identifying oil fields.

Here are the charts of oil production for 42 countries. The trend is clear.

http://dieoff.org/42Countries/42Countries.htm

[nefarious]

59. from those charts

it's easy to see why Big Oil wanted to take over Iraq oil... With virtually no production during the '90s, their resource remained in the ground so the wells will probably hold out the longest.

A strategic grab.

I'm surprised the charts don't list Afghanistan. I've heard the discovery of oil there in the mid '70s by American exploration teams is what drove the Soviets to invade in '79. Only they could never stabilise the country and, same as Iraq, the oil stayed in the ground.

[Dogmudgeon]

64. Bad premise!

The oil won't "run out". It will simply become too expensive to pump and sell at a price low enough to sustain industrial growth.

That point will be reached in 3-10 years unless drastic, even draconian, steps are taken now.

Coal isn't effiicient enough. Solar isn't well developed enough. Hydrogen is a storage technology. All will have their roles, but we've wasted 25 years laughing at energy technologists.

We do need a Manhattan Project style effort to deal with energy, and it will cost in the ballpark of a trillion dollars -- maybe even fifty trillion. And THEN we have to increase energy efficiency anyway, since all that energy we'll need to fuel industrial growth would eventually get to the point where we will have so much waste heat that the Earth itself would melt. (Yes, that's an absurdity, and we'd never make it that far.)

We've misjudged badly and we are going to pay. But do we pay in sweat, or do we pay in blood? That's the choice.

--bkl

[rman]

79. so, we won't run out of oil but we do need a replacement?

and we'v been using oil on a large scale only for some 50 years, not 200.

point is we do take oil out of the ground much faster then it is being replennished.

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. It ISN'T replenished.

Once it's gone, it's GONE. It is a LIMITED RESOURCE. There is NOT GOING TO BE ANY MORE.

[rman]

83. well it is, but it takes millions of years

and we can't wait that long.

[arcos]

85. well, we can build a time machine too... n/t

[blurp]

65. Breeder reactors will eventually take over

It may seem impossible now, but I really think our energy in the future will come from breeder reactors. There's just too much energy available. Over 1,000 years worth it seems.

Now, it still won't replace oil. Oil really is a special substance in a lot of ways.

But I don't think all will be doom and gloom. At some point, breeders will be built. The energy is there. People don't want to go back to the stone ages.

[bpilgrim]

66. Desktop FUSION (sonoluminescence)

Experts Say New Desktop Fusion Claims Seem More Credible
By KENNETH CHANG

Published: March 3, 2004

cientists are again claiming they have made a Sun in a jar, offering perhaps a revolutionary energy source, and this time even some skeptics find the evidence intriguing enough to call for a closer look.

Using ultrasonic vibrations to shake a jar of liquid solvent the size of a large drink cup, the scientists say, they squeezed tiny gas bubbles in the liquid so quickly and violently that temperatures reached millions of degrees and some of the hydrogen atoms in the solvent molecules fused, producing a flash of light and energy.

"It can do some interesting science stuff as is," said Dr. Richard T. Lahey, a professor of engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an author of a paper describing the findings that will appear in the journal Physical Review E.

"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/science/03FUSI.html?ex=1078894800&en=d65159c58cae35df&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

they aren't even at the 'break-even' point yet but it certainly looks interesting.

peace

[everythingsxen]

68. That is some interesting stuff....

I hope they can get that working. I really do.

[Dogmudgeon]

72. John W. Keely

Sonoluminescence sounds exactly like some of the energy-generating gadgets Keely developed a hundred years ago.

However, Keely was "Skepped" and is now considered to be a fraud.

--bkl

[bpilgrim]

167. cept this has been verified TWICE by credible scientist at OAK RIDGE

hence all the press.

i'd say this is closer to cold FUSION experiments that have since been discredited YET this one seems promising.

i just hope the neoCONs don't cut the budgets or WORSE :scared:

check out what the nerds on /. have to say, both interesting and funny...
http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/03/03/1833245.shtml

peace

[aldian159]

73. breeder reactors?

What are they?

[Dogmudgeon]

86. Breeder Reactors

They're nuclear reactors that harnass the power of the heterosexual libido to generate baby breeder reactors.

Honest, I swear!

--bkl
I saw it on the Internet, so it must be true.

[DrWeird]

92. Breeder reactors-

are hypothetical nuclear reactors that can produce huge amounts of electricity and can regenerate its own uranium for fuel rods. The advantage being that you would, theoretically, only have to build one and you wouldn't have to do so much damagin uranium mining. You could just stick one out in the Sonoran desert, the Great Australian Desert, the Gobi etc, and generate all the electricity you need. The down side is you produce ridiculous amounts of radioactive waste.

[struggle4progress]

147. Not hypothetical, and

the idea is you produce additional fissionable isotopes. Requires a filthy reprocessing industry, and is a major proliferation threat.

[everythingsxen]

69. OK; I have a plan!

I have little money, however all I have I would invest in buying a section of land and supplies. If we get enough people who are all willing to collectively build an old school commune... we could easily be within self-sustaining levels by the time peak oil occurs.

I think the main things we need are arable land, water supply and will. If we could find some nice acreage with forests, we could use that as the timber to build shelters, barns and whatever else we need. Secondly we need guns and ammo. All I have are swords, but hey, at least I can use them well. :shrug:

I would especially like to hear from carpenters, masons, farmers and other relevant persons who might have some input. I AM TOTALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. Even if the whole peak-oil thing is bullsh!t, creating a harmonious commune that lives in balance with nature would be nice. I think this could honestly be a doable plan if a lot of us are genuinely willing to try it.

If you want to chat about the idea some or have any suggestions/inspiring words.. PM me and we can negotiate a chat system to use; I have MSN and Yahoo. Screw AIM. :P

[Dogmudgeon]

71. Domestic solutions are easy

Even in Washington, it's not too difficult to get enough energy to provide for a household. With a $5k investment in solar and batteries, you should be able to become self-sufficient and have surplus energy, too.

And super-efficient household appliances have been designed since the 1920s.

The problem lies not with householders, but with getting energy for industrial growth, the thing that economic growth depends on. If we, as a society, can't maintain that growth, depression will happen.

You could buy a house, pay it off, make sure you're in a low-tax area and/or pretend you're a religious ashram or monestary, and become energy self-sufficient. But when the crash hits, you'd still be vulnerable to political changes. It is not too difficult to play with tax codes or other laws to take every cent a person has. Your commune, ashram, or mansion will then be worth nothing.

The best solution I see for local self-reliance is to move yourself and a bunch of your friends into a small town near a big city, cultivate a lot of friends in business and industry, and keep your fingers crossed. Right now, only Christian groups are set up to do that. But 50 people in a college town, say, the size of Altoona, PA, or Chico, CA, could put something like this together in short order.

Robert Rimmer, author of the utopian book The Harrad Experiment, suggested much the same thing in the 1960s as a way of bringing about social change. Rimmer's focus was on sexual relationships, but the outline was universal.

The Libertarians want to "take over" New Hampshire and turn it into a kind of Galt's Gulch! But the idea has merit, even if their economics are ultimately unworkable.

Getting back to the land, establishing a commune and living at a paleolithic level may be OK for short periods of time, but we really need to organize around a people-centered civilization instead of an industry-centered civilization. We certainly don't have to rape the planet to have high technology, mass production of useful items, and advanced medical care. What it will take is more thought than money. However, it is likely to provide "more bang for the buck" while the buck is still in the driver's seat.

--bkl

[AlienGirl]

89. Might I suggest...

Let's not do this in a cold climate?

Tucker

P.S. Jager needs to be sat on if we do this; he will want to lead some kind of revolution. That way lies rump of skunk and madness.

[everythingsxen]

102. Indeed

There are other locations...

[plurality]

111. check Costa Rica

nice and tropical, no oppresive military, and CHEAP arable land.

[arcos]

159. no military at all, actually...

since 1948.

[plurality]

164. that's the point

As long as there is a military there's always the chance it'll become oppressive, but it's not a problem in Costa Rica. Of course I hear it is also the CIA's de facto retirement home, so that might be cause of concern.

[cheezus]

116. that's fine until

the crisis hits and your commune is invaded by the hordes.

might as well live the opulent life while we can, eh?

[plurality]

165. that's why you have fortified sentry posts with .50 cal machine guns

:)

[minkyboodle]

75. now someone tell me (NASCAR)

how NASCAR isn't the stupidest thing going in light of all this?........ (waiting to be called a combination of elitist/racist/reason why dems lose elections by somebody)
:shrug:
Scott

[rman]

82. nascar's waste of oil is insignificant

how much percent of oil is being wasted on nascar. hom much percent of oil is being wasted by say, a modern war (tanks and jetfighters).
i'm not saying it's ok, but stopping nascar's waste won't make a difference.

[minkyboodle]

94. you're right of course

but it still strikes me as a rather blatant example of the lack of info or caring about this issue. War is of course the ultimate waste of many things
Scott

[zelda7743]

153. You could say all sports

Given the amount of travel that each team does per year in their happy little jets. :)

[Renew Deal]

186. Nascar barely registers in the grand scheme.

Those SUV's are a big problem. 18 mpg for an SUV vs 60 mpg for a prius.

[saoirse]

77. Hmmm...

This has got to be about the thousandth apocalyptic Web site
I've had the annoyance of having to stumble across...

Omigod - we're about to run out of oil!

Jesus... at least Charlton Heston could put some ooomph into it.

Take your end o' the world masturbation someplace people give a shit.

[Spider Jerusalem]

80. In case you haven't noticed...

this thread has over seventy responses. One would say that people apparently DO give a shit. So why don't YOU take your superciliious and obnoxious attitude off somewhere more congenial, instead of making insulting comments about something you obviously know nothing about?

[Serenity-NOW]

88. Hey that was good for a chuckle anyway

Amazing how people would describe the inevitable in those terms. Particluarly as there is 1) plenty of real science to support the argument and 2) not only have the oil companys started making noise about alternative energy solutions (shell) but also Matthew Simmons of the fabled energy task force and the CFR has spoken on record about it as "the most important issue".

The mere fact that Hubbert predicted the US peak accurately should at least raise some eyebrows.

Nope, nothing to see here, move along...

Them with their heads in the sand gonna get their butts kicked but good.

[arcos]

87. Peak oil is NOT about running out of oil...

and if you don't know that, you obviously don't know anything about the topic, so your opinions are not very credible.

Anyway, I wish you luck during the next few decades. :hi:

[rman]

90. then again peakoil wouldn't be an issue if we would/could not run out

If we would not run out of -practically accessable- oil, that is.

One might argue that we haven't run out as long as there's oil in the ground. But when taking that oil out of the ground costs more energy than it represents, then it's not practically accessable.
Of course problems for this civilisation will start before we'v reached the point of deminished return; oil will get scarce, driving prices up way high.
But for all intents and purposes we are running out, and that is the problem.

[tedoll78]

91. At the risk of sounding like a total crackpot, I'm actually planning..

.. I'm actually, in a way, preparing for something like this.

Peak Oil, worldwide war, the Great Depression to the Tenth Power, an environmental catastrophe, volcanic eruptions all over the earth, a small extraterrestrial object hitting earth.. we're long overdue for something to change the dynamic of life as we know it.

And I find myself actually planning for when one of these things may happen:
- buying land in a isolated, rural area.
- building a strong stone house on that acreage, a portion of it under the ground.
- making the home entirely resource-independent - solar panels for all the power it'd need, and a well or two for all of the water it'd need.
- learning how to grow certain crops, medicinal plants, and herbs.
- learning mechanical repair, electrical repair, basic medical procedures (I'm in the medical field anyway..)
- including food storage for a long term
- and so on..

I feel like a freak for wanting to be able to become independent of the current societal infrastructure, but I also like the idea of being able to handle anything. I don't trust the government to help my family or anyone else during these kinds of events. And the thing is, I'm in no way one of those looney isolationists who likes to hole himself up in his compound and never interact with society.. that'd suck! Is anyone else considering doing this?

[KayLaw]

93. I have similar thoughts

I have a small town in mind, though the prices for houses and land are pretty steep right now and I'm slowly learning about alternative energy and food production and storage. My b-i-l is a doctor and can get us basic medical supplies. The Mormons will supply you with info about food storage if you need help.

A lot of the survivalist sites have this sort of info but you'll need to hold your nose - some of them are a little strange. They are terrified " Hitlery " and her gang want to steal their freedom and their guns, but have no problem with Bush and Ashcroft and The Patriot Act. They prepared like crazy for Y2k but think idea of hitting peak oil production is nuts...You get it.

[plurality]

112. I've been looking into it.

Been working on convincing the family to pool resources and go to Costa Rica. A few DUers wouldn't be bad either.

[ellie]

151. Yes,

We are in the planning stages of this ourselves. I will not be a victim and I don't trust the government one iota. I have a large immediate family that can work crops, etc. The time to plan is now.

[seabeyond]

95. the easy

and saving lives and if this were true it wouldnt be hard. could easily ban all cars and by 2006 all have to go to electric cars, technology is there and would stop world chaos easy as pie to do. so if inevitable, why not just ban cars now. would get a jump in manufacturing jobs and surely that wuold put a big slow down to oil use. and i am sure i am not the first to think of.

so if this is so dire, why are they not doing. and there are zillions of things we can do

[democratreformed]

100. Cars are not the main problem - not by a long shot

If you visit the site noted in the original post, there are a myriad of things that rely on oil. Transportation is also very easy to fix - there are tons of alternatives there. It is the other things that rely on oil (plastic production, fertilizer, etc.) that will cause the most problems.

Still, I am not advocating total panic or gloom and doom. I still haven't read up on all the alternative energy sources to educate myself on how feasible they are.

By the same token, the scientific evidence of peak oil seems very valid. It is the assumptions of many major disasters made by the website that are unsubstantiated. Though they make sense if one believes there are absolutely no alternatives, I am not ready to accept that just yet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

174. transportation is easy to fix, but...

the Repiggies and Libertarians get apoplectic at the thought of any means of transport other than cars and trucks. They're so wedded to the internal combustion engine that they're sick.

If we had started in 1980 and NOT spent billions on military interventions and useless weapons systems, we could now have modern, efficient, wide-ranging mass transit systems and regional intercity passenger rail (for eliminating short-haul plane trips) and bike paths and pedestrian-friendly urban planning.

[Kelvin Mace]

101. Because...

so if this is so dire, why are they not doing. and there are zillions of things we can do.

1) The masses panic easily.

2) The leaders who could do something are only 10-20 years from the grave, so they have nothing to wory about. Why make yourself unpopular for your final days by trying to educate people while making very rich and powerful people mad at you?

3)Ignorance.

4) Remember what happened to Carter?

5) The rich and powerful who can change things are very selfish.

6) Ignorance

7) The masses *hate* bad news and punish politicians who tell them the truth.

8) Ignorance

9) Religous insanity. Jesus will fix it all, so why worry?

10) Willfull ignorance.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[Kelvin Mace]

103. Electric cars?

The cars must be built - need oil
Cars require tires - need oil
Cars require electricity - Hmmmm... OK, solar panels

Solar panels must be built - need oil

See a problem?

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org
http://www.blackboxvoting.com

[RoadRunner]

99. I'm actually mildly optimistic about all this

Peak oil is no myth. There is a finite amount of stored solar energy in the form or hydrocarbons on the planet. As long as demand keeps increasing, a peak will happen, no way to stop it. Once it does, we still have enough oil for several decades, albiet at much higher prices. Peak production has probably already occurred.

The reason I'm optimistic is that a new world of entrepreneurial opportunities are becoming available as we shift to renewable energy. RE is here now (my weekend place is totally solar, for example, and uses no bought energy of any kind). Companies around the globe are shifting to RE (read "Mid Course Correction" detailing the model used at Interface, for example). Even the major energy companies are shifting to RE (Shell is heavily investing in solar panel production, El Paso Electric is building windmills as fast as they can, for example). Lighting technology exists that allow just as much light with 1/4 the energy. There are more examples, but the point is that RE creates jobs and we'll all do just fine. Humans got along quite well on this little planet long before crude oil was discovered.

See the energy/environment board for a lot of good information.

[seabeyond]

105. not everyone is ignorant

greedy stupid and into denial. this is what i see. i am not only a glass is half full kinda gal, i am an overflowing in abundance and not talking oil., i remember decades ago went thru my head, probably calif in 70's with gas lines, that we use it all then what.

i also refuse the huge ass vehicle that are danger to cars and suck up the resources in selfishness...........

i also dont abuse the easy access to gas and drive conservatively, just cause that is the kind of gal i am

will be part of the group looking for answers and to help in awareness. my feel in awareness we can do everything and anything

thanks for info. has made me explore all kinds of things last nite and this morning

and to another poster, yes i am thinking picking and buying property access to water ect........lol lol and hording.

anyway thanks for info all of you

[Kelvin Mace]

106. Yes, but...

"not everyone is ignorant greedy stupid and into denial."

True, it is just the people in power who have the ability to change things.

David Allen
Publisher, CEO, Janitor
Plan Nine Publishing
http://www.plan9.org
http://www.blackboxvoting.com

[seabeyond]

107. huh uh

lol and a wink, disagree with this too. i am sitting with dean and the grassroot theory and if we chose, there has been no time like this moment with the internet where the people can do.

[RoadRunner]

110. hi'ya sea...

I'm with you on that. There are amazing things going on in the RE movement and the sustainability movement, and without "leaders" as we know them. All at the grassroots level, and it's very powerful. Change is in the wind.

The only role for government is to stop killing for oil. We'll adjust just fine without it.

In peace and awareness,

RoadRunner

[seabeyond]

113. hi ya roadrunner

ah you make me feel good. yes

[PATRICK]

114. The other side is also bad

Releasing all the heat and energy of all the oil is something they are scared enough about to propose actually burying CO2 into the ground. This stuff doesn't actually evaporate into outer space but transformed into something not congenial to life even as oil's absence hurts us too.

But they fluff it off with being able to squeeze out MORE oil more ingeniously. Hell, when Antarctica is fully exposed there should be another continent to drain.

The snake devouring its own tail. When does it stop?

[John BigBootay]

115. I looked at my Magic 8 Ball--

and asked it if we were all going to die in 20 years because of no oil. 8 Ball said "Sources say no."

So I am happy with that.

Seriously, this is fearmongering from radical left eco-guys.

Yeah, I know that's going to make me look bad to say it (only the right uses fearmongering as a tactic to work it's machiavellian interests). But my reading indicates that there are still massive reserves out there.

The price will go up-- certainly. The rising price will reopen up old fields that were considered too expensive to drill and new fields that were once considered undevelopable.

The rising prices will also encourage a new breed of conservation and development of alternative energy.

The worst I see happening is a global recession or possibly a depression. Serious enough to be sure, but I do not predict a mass extinction or a complete destruction of our way of life.

Just my opinion.

[Spider Jerusalem]

118. Massive reserves?

Yeah. In the neighbourhood of a trillion barrels remain in the ground. You appear ignorant of a few facts, however: once a reservoir reaches the 50% depletion point, it becomes much harder and more energy-intensive to extract the petroleum. A point of diminishing returns is reached where it costs more, energy-wise, to extract the oil that it's worth. And, given ever-increasing rates of consumption, doubling the reserve amount to two trillion barrels only pushes peak production back by 15 years or so. And there is no alternative which can completely replace crude petroleum as a resource base, nor is there any alternative which is so efficient in terms of energy returned on energy invested.

And some of the most credible sources for peak oil information are petroleum geologists with decades of experience in their field...I'd hardly call them fearmongers or radical ecologists.

[John BigBootay]

120. As technology gets better and better--

we get better at finding it and it gets more economical to drill it. As the price goes up, less attractive reserves become more attractive and USAGE decreases as use of alternatives increase.

Call me ignorant, I don't care, I don't know you-- you don't me so I won't take that personally, but my "ignorant" opinion is simply that we won't be dying off in 20 years.

THAT IS, without a doubt in my mind, FEARMONGERING at it's absolute worst.

[Minstrel Boy]

122. Yet as technology has gotten better,

we've been finding less. Much less. Discoveries peaked 50 years ago, and have been declining precipitously since.

"We won't be dying off in 20 years"? Terrific. As the price goes up - waaay up, beyond the ability of economies to sustain themselves - and masses can no longer afford what we now think of as basic utilities, what's our quality of life?

[Spider Jerusalem]

123. Except...

that discovery of new reserves is nil, at the moment. And large tracts are known to be bearren and not worth exploring, for geological reasons. Most of what can be found, has. The fields that are undiscovered and have yet to be drilled won't yield enough to cause any significant change in the overall picture. (For instance, ANWR is estimated to have enough oil to supply the needs of the United States for between six and eleven months.)

Also, due to the energy investment required and the fact that most or all undiscovered fields at this point are either polar or deepwater fields, drilling is far from economical.

And understanding of the facts that the global population explosion is due to petroleum-based agriculture, that petroleum-based agriculture must, inevitably, end, likely within this century, and that it will be impossible to maintain our current global population thereafter, is NOT fearmongering. But then, unpleasant truths are the hardest to take.

[John BigBootay]

125. I can't argue that we haven't peaked--

maybe we have. And maybe few new fields will be found, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are dying in 20 years.

I am not arguing that there is no reality to peak oil-- I am simply saying that my prediction is that we won't all be dead in 20 years.

And I stand by my assertion that the doomsaying is bullshit propaganda designed to terrify people into conservation and action. While those ideals are good, I find this means of manipulating people to be irresponsible.

In the same way we can argue Bush is irresponsible for using terrorism to whip the populace into a frenzy. There is little difference in my book. Actually, I take the fearmongering regarding terrorism more seriously because at least I have empirical evidence to show that terrorists want to kill me.

That said, I take peak oil seriously as well-- but until I have more authoritative evidence, a demonstrably large body of scientific and economic minds concurring on this matter, I will regard it merely as something to keep my eye on.

[SmileyBoy]

141. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not saying that Peak Oil won't happen either. Obviously if the reserves are limites, we'll see something like that.

It's these people who are saying that this will cause a global catastrophe is what really bugs me.

[Nederland]

132. Discovery is nil because oil is cheap

That's what you fail to consider. For the past 20 years, looking for new oil is a money losing proposition simply because oil is so cheap. Once the price of oil starts to rise, discovery will pick up.

[amazona]

134. thank you

The voice of sweet reason at last.

I remember when we were supposed to be out of oil by 1980. Then it was 1990. Then it was 2000. Yet somehow the price of oil didn't even bother to rise. What is the point of looking for new oil when it doesn't even pay to drill the stuff you've already found? No one ever predicted that the price of oil would have stayed flat for so many years. We were supposed to be paying $5 a gallon oh, a decade or so, ago.

It reminds me of how the Jehovah's Witnesses are always predicting the end of the world for next year.

[BlueEyedSon]

137. Are you HIGH? 'Cause gasoline sure is!

Gasoline prices near historic high

The average gasoline price in the Bay Area is now within reach of its highest recorded level ever, according to a new survey from the American Automobile Association.


According to retail price surveys by the association, San Francisco's Friday average of $2.269 for a gallon of regular grade self-serve gasoline is half a cent under San Francisco's and California's record high for gasoline of $2.276 set on March 19, 2003. Friday's price is up 5.6 cents in one week and up 35.6 cents in a month's time.

http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2004/03/01/daily41.html

[Nederland]

138. Good Lord

Have you ever heard of inflation? Gasoline is not at a historical highs, it is close to its historic lows if you account for inflation.

Moreover, the price of oil and the price of gasoline are two different things.

[rman]

161. So oil companies have not been looking for oil in the past 20 years?

Then how come Shell does know its reserves are less then they previously thought?

Major oil stocks fall as Shell revises reserves
By Joseph A Giannone
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/040109/80/eiqr3.html

NEW YORK, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Shares of major oil companies fell on Friday after Royal Dutch/Shell Group (LSE: SHEL.L - news - msgs) shocked investors by slashing its "proven" reserves 20 percent, raising concerns others may also have improperly booked reserves."

And why is it that oil companies speak of "ever more unforgiving production results"?

Paris Peak Oil Conference Reveals Deepening Crisis
http://www.peakoil.net/
May 30, 2003, PARIS - Research presented on May 26th and 27th at the French Institute for Petroleum (IFP) by a wide variety of experts from varying and often competitive perspectives disclosed that, in the year since the first conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), supply constraints have worsened and the realities of energy depletion are becoming more apparent. A year of violent political history centered on oil and ever-more unforgiving production results have begun to force reluctant political and economic acknowledgement of Peak Oil’s threat to civilization."

Do you really think production will increase for as long as demand increases? Are there infinite reserves of oil?

[meow mix]

195. exactly. we dont need any oil, so no one is trying to find it.

LOL!!
this posters statements are complete fantasy.
but thats ok, it prolly makes him feel better =)

[Kelvin Mace]

126. I must respectfully disagree...

"Fearmongering"? I'm afraid not. I am a VERY skeptical person and the science behind this is sound and the laws of thermondynamics cannot be negotiated with.

The problem is not rising prices, though rising oil prices mean higher food costs, which means greater starvation.

The problem is at some point it will take more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to extract a barrel of oil. Once you cross that boundary, the system goes off the cliff.

Oil demand is skyrocketing, while oil supply is peaking and will start to fall. U.S. production peaked around 1970. When you mix soaring demand and falling supply, things come unstuck real fast.

New energy sources? You mean the ones that should have been started 20-30 years ago?

You underestimate the inertia of the industrial machine. You can't just walk into the factories and start installing solar panels.

Also, how will you build the massive number of alternate energy systems needed when the industrial mechanism is starting to crash around you?

I want to believe. I really do *want* to believe science will provide the answer. But the bulk of science is too busy figuring out how to make pills to keep people younger and how to make potato chips you can stack in a can.

David Allen
www.thoughtcrimes.org
Distrusting the Government Since 1984

[lutherj]

117. I agree that it's a scary problem, but I don't think it will be the worst

case scenario that is often portrayed in the websites. There is a chart commonly posted on all these websites and in the books showing world oil consumption through the twentieth century, and it shows a significant dip just after the 1973 oil embargo. Usually this is explained as a combination of world recession reducing demand, and the effect of conservation efforts. This indicates to me that once we hit the peak, or even once demand exceeds world output (which could happen even before we hit the peak) the resulting shock to the economy would throw us into serious recession, thus reducing demand and consumption. The world would immediately start adopting all kinds of conservation efforts to avoid the impact of skyrocketing oil prices, which would also reduce demand. And also, RE would become viable. All of this would lengthen the downside of the curve, and give us the time to make the necessary transition.


Once this happens, it will be obvious to everyone that Peak Oil has occurred, and governments will start nationalizing the oil industries, and impose rationing on oil markets and other resources, much like we did during WWII. Gradually, the population in the US will move back into smaller communities as economies become more localized, and we will start to resemble more the agrarian society that the US started out with.

Of course, that's assuming that the corporations and republicans don't turn us into a medieval feudal state.

[proud patriot]

119. we are all in the same boat on this one

The best advice I can offer is to plant
Trees now , I mean apples , oranges etc.

:hi:

[lutherj]

121. A point I forgot to make . . .

I think the whole capitalist "free market" ever-expanding economy religion of the right is an illusion created by the abundance of cheap oil. Once cheap energy subsides we'll need to transition to sustainable, steady-state economy.

I just read an article in Discover Magazine (no link, it's not online) stating that one gallon of gas represents 100 tons of prehistoric plant matter, and that all the fossil fuel consumed since the beginning of the industrial revolution is the energy equivalent of all the plants on the planet over a period of 13,000 years.

The US consumes 19 million barrels of oil a day. Imagine trying to ramp up to produce 19 million barrels of hydrogen a day. Obviously, there are some big changes coming.

[everythingsxen]

124. ANNOUNCEMENT

I have formed a Yahoo group for anyone interested in realistically discussing the survival option, so that we can keep in direct contact. PM me for the info.

[BlueEyedSon]

129. There are already yahoo groups

[everythingsxen]

140. Oh..

Well.. there is no Yahoo group for DU people now is there?

:shrug:

It's not like I had anything better to do. :P

Don't make me give you the braaainworms! :P

[malachibk]

127. Solar panels and communes are great but...

surely people on this board care more about the world community than that. Why don't we run for office? Educate? Visit our representatives. Put ourselves in positions to influence people.

Saving ourselves is easy, but not very noble. Maybe time is too short to effect honest change, but running around scared sh**less and moving to Costa Rica (which is lovely -- I've been there -- but it will turn ugly REAL fast if these predictions pan out -- think of neighboring countries' citizens with guns and in need of our communal resources.)

Shouldn't we all aim higher?

[Nederland]

128. Found one Mistake

Being skeptical, I wanted to verify one of the few actual facts the article presents (most of it isn't facts at all, but mere assertions about what the future holds). What I found was that the statement that "It is possible that the year 2000 was the year of peak oil production, as production has dipped every year since" is incorrect. In 2000, worldwide oil production was 77,002,000 barrels a day. In 2003, worldwide oil production was 79,176,000 barrels a day. Source http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t14.xls.

Given that the article cannot even get one of the few verifiable facts it presents right, I'm skeptical that it can possibly get the big picture right. Like many people, I've been listening to the doomsayers say that we will run out of cheap oil in 20 years for about 30 years now. So long as reserve numbers keep on rising (and they have been rising for decades (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html) I'm not going to believe anyone who says oil will be getter expensive anytime soon.

Despite this, I do believe that the oil age is drawing to a close. Not for lack of oil, but simply because better alternatives exist. The stone age didn't end for lack of cheap stones, and the oil age will not end for lack of cheap oil.

[BlueEyedSon]

130. Reserve numbers are fiction, and lately have started heading DOWN

Worry grows over Shell's reserves error
January 13, 2004

Royal Dutch/Shell Group's disclosure that it overstated its proven reserves by 20 per cent rattled energy investors and is raising questions about whether the oil industry as a whole has inflated its prospects.

Shell, one of the world's largest publicly traded oil concerns, said on Friday that it had erroneously overbooked its proven oil and natural gas reserves by the equivalent of 3.9 billion barrels of oil.

The oil portion alone, about two-thirds of the revision, represents some $US67.5 billion in potential future revenue, assuming moderate oil prices of $US25 a barrel. Reserve calculations, though technical and arcane, drive an oil company's prospects, much like revenue growth drives a technology company's outlook.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763409.html?from=storyrhs

Saudis Debate Expert in U.S. On Outlook For Their Oil

By JEFF GERTH (NYT) 595 words
Late Edition - Final , Section C , Page 4 , Column 6
ABSTRACT - Saudi Aramco executives say they plan to maintain production capacity at current rate of 10 million barrels per day for rest of this decade but could increase maximum output by 20 percent to 50 percent in about 10 years; Matthew R Simmons, chairan of energy investment bank in Houston, warning 'the easy oil era in Saudi Arabia is either nearly over or over,' calls for large-scale research into new energy sources; debate about Saudi Arabia's oil future plays out at conference in Washington, DC, sponsored by Center for Strategic and International Studies (M)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C14F73E580C768EDDAB0894DC404482

[Nederland]

131. One Company's numbers don't tell the whole story

You asserted that reserve numbers are heading down but only provided numbers from a single company. Sorry, but you'll have to do better than that if you really want to convince anyone.

Moreover, reserve estimates are precisely that: estimates. In the words of your own article, the calculations are "technical and arcane". The real truth can be found by looking at production numbers. As my post indicates, production numbers continue to rise--a fact directly contradicted by the original article.

[BlueEyedSon]

135. Hmm... you challenged an entire thesis with one number.

No matter.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/042903_media_lies.html

To inflate his data on oil reserves, Mr. Yergin accepts industry and EIA (Energy Information Association) figures without question (rather like the embedded journalists reporting on the invasion of Iraq). He refuses to backdate discoveries (account for the fact that oil companies routinely under-report new finds to reduce taxes) and he accepts inflated numbers for Caspian reserves even as the oil majors pull out of the area for lack of interest. But one of the most interesting techniques he uses to inflate his data is to include all hydrocarbon deposits regardless of source or extraction techniques. Whether tar sands, deep sea deposits or conventional oil, it is all one to Mr. Yergin.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/32/32-25.html

By early 2003, Agip KCO’s rough estimates of 7 to 9 billion barrel reserves for Kashagan were an accepted figure throughout the world petroleum industry, although some industry observers did offer that the field might eventually yield up to 13 billion barrels. On the other hand, some projections have been even lower. In April 2002, Gian Maria Gros-Pietro, then chairman of Italy’s ENI, speaking at the Eurasian Economic Summit in Almaty, Kazakhstan stated that the entire Caspian contained only 7.8 billion barrels out of which Kazakhstan held only 5.4 billion.(16)

Such estimates are never purely a matter of science; oil companies tend, after operations have begun, to give low estimates while governments seeking foreign investments, such as the case with Kazakhstan, naturally push projections as high as they can. The Kazakhstan government continues to suggest that its nation’s oil resources may be as much as 50 billion barrels, but this is hardly taken seriously in the industry. While Agip’s current reserve figures may be intentionally low there is good reason to believe that they are reasonably accurate. A recent study by the consulting firm Wood MacKenzie estimated total hydrocarbon reserves of the 5 Caspian littoral states as 39.4 billion barrels. (17) At any rate, it is by now obvious that Caspian oil is not the alternative to OPEC Middle Eastern oil once envisioned by some strategists. To give some comparisons: while Kazakhstan’s Tengiz may hold 8 billion barrels of oil and Kashagan 7-9 billion barrels, Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field (the world’s largest) holds 70 to 80 billion barrels of proven reserves. As the EIA itself admitted in a February 2002 report, “The Caspian will never be another Middle East.” (18)

http://www.worldoil.com/WO_RESEARCH/Research/112299.pdf
(sorry cant cut from this PDF)

The bottom line is this: there were approximately 2 to 3 trillion barrels of oil, total. We used 1 or so. Discover rate is almost zero, usage is 75,000,000 per day and increasing at 3% per year. Everything we do or make requires oil. Oil production will peak within the next 10 years. The downside of that curve will be difficult.

[Nederland]

139. Response

Its obvious that you want to believe what you want to believe. I, however, will not believe that we are running out of oil until I see production numbers start to fall. I've been listening to people like you say for thirty years that production numbers are going to start falling in just a couple years and you folks are always wrong. The sad thing is that all you need to do is every year claim that peak oil is just around the corner and eventually you will be right just out of dumb luck. I'm also sure that when that day comes you will all be saying: "see, we told you so..." As if you hadn't been wrong for decades.

Best of luck digging your shelter.

[hunter]

156. The bigger picture...

You wrote:

"In 2000, worldwide oil production was 77,002,000 barrels a day. In 2003, worldwide oil production was 79,176,000 barrels a day.

That's an extraordinary figure, and not at all comforting if you run all the numbers.

For example, Chinese oil consumption is increasing by about 7% every year. They are now the world's second largest importer of oil.

That's just a little piece of the puzzle that is the "bigger picture."

Since you said, "the stone age didn't end for lack of cheap stones..."
I think it's fitting to remember that the stone age ended for most humans when people using metal invaded -- like when the Europeans took over the American continent.

I can think of doomsday scenarios like that all day...

The trick is not to stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is fine, or to pretend that we'll all somehow muddle through. And it is especially futile to ridicule the doomsayers since some of them will be saying things we all ought to listen to.

No, what you need to do is present people with realistic options that will allow them to escape the various doomsday scenarios.

There are people in China and people in the United States who believe that they can stir up the national patriotic fervor and simply claim any of the world's remaining oil as their own. But if any nation pursues this course of action I suspect quite a few cities will be turned into burnt nuclear wastelands, and the question of peak oil will become moot, because society will no longer have the means to build any high tech oil recovery systems, for example deep sea or polar oil fields, and civilization as we know it will quickly fizzle out.

There's plenty of coal, but using coal will probably result in other sorts of doomsdays.

What we have left on the table is renewable energy systems and nuclear power. Both are interesting and viable choices. I myself lean towards the renewable energy side, but I don't spend any time villifying the supporters of nuclear power, which may seem strange to anyone who remembers me twenty years ago protesting at nuclear power plants, and helping to close down a number of research facilities...

Please, let us solve this problem in a way that does not require me to move my family up to the house by the stream in the mountains, at least not until I have enough solar panels to flush the toilets and take warm showers.

Peace

[yltlatl]

182. Mistake?

If you look carefully at the 2003 figures in this chart (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t14.xls), they are ALL estimated. If you go by the non-estimates in this chart, then world-wide production has either stayed flat or dipped, as the author of the site in question claims.

It's worth noting that a great many countries have strong economic and political reasons to overstate their reserves:

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm

[neverforget]

133. how thoroughly depressing........

:cry:

[BlueEyedSon]

136. It's only depressing because our leaders are avoiding the issue

and blowing money on bullshit. We could easily become the world leader in cheap, non-polluting alt-energy. It could be the new IT (information technology, i.e. as an economic driver).

[InhaleToTheChief]

142. Hell yeah!

BlueEyedSon, that is the point exactly. Alt-energy could be a dot-com boom that would last indefinitely, create national security, economic security, jobs, and the right kind of patriotism.

I must say I am pretty impressed with Kerry's energy stance. I think it moves in the right direction. Of course, "moving in the right direction" has never been easier than it is now ;)

[everythingsxen]

143. kick

:kick:

[NashVegas]

144. Ya Know, It Might Not Be a Bad Time to Go Amish

[seabeyond]

145. that would be a way

they already have the whole community put together

[Jose Diablo]

177. A simple life is appealing

Sustainable living. Asleep when the sun goes down, up at dawn to milk the cows. Community builds for new barns. There are a lot of up sides for this style of living.

Maybe we are not adapted very well for living outside of an agricultural life.

[[e-mail]]

146. 9-11 is Ground Zero for the Peace Movement - 911Visibility.org

A Historic Moment for the Peace & Justice Movement
Stopping the 9-11 Cover Up is Ground Zero for the Peace Effort
by William Douglas
www.globalresearch.ca 4 March 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DOU403A.html


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

Author's note: In issue #6 of Global Outlook my Kansas City arrest for attempting to attend a anti-Bush demonstration was covered. The good news is that I was acquitted on both counts of Disorderly Conduct. The better news was my protest sign was carried on ABCNews.com ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/protest_zones_031112-1.html ), reading "What is Bush Hiding About 9-11? Stop the 9-11 Cover Up!" Which brings me to this essay's point. The peace & justice community has a historic opportunity to profoundly affect the future of the world . . . if we take it. We must work to get Bush's 9-11 cover up the attention it deserves. Mainstream media is beginning to look at this, but we need a movement. Why?



It is common knowledge that the Bush team had written the Patriot Act "before" 9-11. We also know through the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) written by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc., that their designs for conquest in Iraq and elsewhere were planned "before" 9-11. The American people would have never allowed such dramatic rollbacks in civil liberties at home and the launching of two wars overseas had it not been for one event . . . 9-11. 9-11 gave the Bush Administration and Pentagon hawks cart blanche to turn the world upside down. It frightened Americans into answering the age old question "guns or butter?" with a resounding answer of "GUNS!!" The problem is, the "official" 9-11 story does not hold water. 9-11 families in mass are filing litigations to demand full 9-11 disclosure. However, they need the support of the peace movement to gain a larger voice. Why should the peace & justice movement be involved in 9-11 truth actions?

Bush has persuaded Americans that to stop future 9-11 terrorist type strikes, we need A) Endless wars, and B) Reduced Liberty at home. The truth is that neither is necessary, the only thing required was for Bush et al to DO THEIR JOBS before and on 9-11, which they did not. President Bush actually ordered the FBI's head of counter terrorism to "back off" the Bin Laden and Al Qaeda investigations before 9-11. All airforce hijacked flight intercept procedures were violated on 9-11, and 9-11 widow Ellen Mariani's attorney is charging that this could only have happened if someone had issued a "stand down" order on 9-11. Oddly, immediately after 9-11 when other planes were grounded throughout the U.S., Bush allowed private jets to spirit Bin Laden family members and other Saudi royals out of the U.S. with no substantive questioning from the FBI. Insider stock trades profiting off the coming attacks of United and American airlines were made at a bank with known CIA connections, AB Brown Trust. The current head of AB Brown resigned on 9-11-2001, leaving behind $2.5 million in unclaimed "winnings" from someone who had bet AGAINST United and American Airlines stocks "the day before" 9-11. If 9-11 was allowed to happen, as it appears it was, it would remove the fuel from the militaristic fires in many Americans hearts that the Bush Admin. absolutely needs to justify endless war and civil liberty rollbacks.

It is time for the peace and justice movement to get behind heroes like Mrs. Ellen Mariani, Kristin Breitweiser, and Mindy Klienburg, 9-11 widows who are fighting for a truth that may unravel the entire Bush "endless war" agenda. Mrs. Mariani's attorney in her suit against Bush, stated that Mrs. Mariani's goal is to end Bush's endless illegal wars, to recover civil rights in America, and to end Bush's manipulation of the American people by shamelessly using 9-11, an event that he allowed to happen for personal political gain, and is now covering up.

Mrs. Mariani and her attorney Phil Berg, former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, recently spoke in Kansas City to capacity crowds at several metro churches, and were interviewed by local ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX News affiliates, as well as The Kansas City Star.

A subtle and silent revolution for truth is beginning to boil across North America, and beyond. The 911Visibility.org Movement has emerged in the United States in response to 9-11 widow, Ellen Mariani's, historic lawsuit against G.W. Bush et al for complicity in allowing the 9-11 attacks to occur and for his subsequent "attempted" 9-11 cover up. Long Island Press wrote last week that www.911visibility.org is giving Americans demanding 9-11 truth a voice.

Bush's cover up is about to be thwarted. The 911Visibility.org Project released it's new website www.septembereleventh.org to 100,000 hits from visitors in the first two weeks of it's launch. It's purpose is many fold. To empower ordinary people to contact media and governments worldwide to demand a full and complete disclosure of all relevant 9-11 facts. It seeks to engage the mainstream peace & justice movement in the 9-11 truth movement. It provides step-by-step manuals on how to organize local 9-11 Visibility Projects, from organizing to media outreach, and by forming coalitions of existing peace & justice groups.

The National 911Visibility.org Project was modeled on broad based peace & justice coalition efforts in Seattle and Kansas City, where hundreds demonstrated, got local media coverage, lobbied the local newspaper into condemning Bush's 9-11 cover up, and handed out many thousands of leaflets on the 9-11 cover up, as well as organizing public teach ins at churches etc.

www.septembereleventh.org provides downloadable flyers and posters, access to 9-11 cover up books and videos for house parties, etc. The 911Visibility.org Project also promotes and supports the 9-11 Meetups.com. 9-11 Meetups.com enables those concerned about the 9-11 cover up to meet with others in their communities to begin organizing. Activists in over 100 cities around the world have listed for 911Meetups. The 911Visibility.org Project provides tools for those 9-11 Meetups to utilize and hit the ground running, to empower them with techniques to broaden their effort by reaching out to mainstream peace & justice organizations, and by using the Internet more effectively.

Howard Dean called to attention the rumours that Bush was warned by the Saudi's of the coming 9-11 attacks BEFORE they occurred, and Dean asserted that this is exactly why we need FULL disclosure from the Bush Administration regarding 9-11. John Kerry recently demanded full 9-11 disclosure from the Bush administration as well. Former 9-11 Commissioner, Max Cleland, on CNN stated that Bush's obstructions of the 9-11 investigation were "DISGUSTING" and a "SCAM," and that in fact "America is being scammed!" CNN's Aaron Brown condemned Hastert's attempt to cut short the 9-11 Commission, and urged his viewers to call Congress to demand an extension of the 9-11 Commission deadline. The 9-11 movement seeks to build on these bold assertions, to create a mass movement calling attention to the Bush obstruction of the 9-11 investigation.

For 2 long years Bush has attempted to thwart any real 9-11 investigation. Ellen Mariani's suit against Bush et al under the RICO Act for racketeering, is the catalyst to demand truth. Bush tried to buy her off with a $1 MILLION "settlement," but Mariani said, "I'd rather eat dirt . . .". Mrs. Mariani's courageous act must not go unsupported by mainstream peace & justice activists.

We are at a critical point in human history. Americans are willing to be led into shameful acts, so long as they are terrorized into thinking that is the only way they can avoid future 9-11 type strikes. To expose the truth that 9-11 was allowed to happen by an administration that needed the strike to further it's own political ambitions will provide a shock therapy that can wake Americans up. It will be the healthiest possible thing that could happen right now.

"The Truth shall set you free."

Get involved today, and urge all other activists and activist organizations to get involved. The truth is ripe, it yearns to be broken free, but it will take a concerted effort by the movement to break the truth through the corporate media shroud that has thus far contained it. This week the Ellen Marinari suit was mentioned in some North American media. Together we can force it out to the mainstream public.

Roughly in America there are 40% who will love Bush no matter what he does. There are about 40% who have a visceral distaste for Bush no matter what he does. The 20% swing voters lean to Bush due to the carefully nurtured myth that Bush=Security. Of course the opposite is true, because evidence shows Bush allowed 9-11 to occur. So, to expose the Mariani suit to the general public, will result in Bush losing in a landslide in 2004, and THEN the truth of 9-11 can come out. We are at a historic moment. American Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison wrote, "We may be witnessing the Nazification of our nation." The Irish Nobel Laureate, Seamus Heaney, wrote, "We are living in a moment where hope and history rhyme."

We have within our grasp an opportunity to rent the fabric of our Prozac nation, and clear away the spell that has clouded our national vision. However, we must step forward and take it. The American peace & justice community has a historic opportunity before us. By embracing the 9-11 truth movement and taking up the cause of the courageous 9-11 family's fight for truth, they can remove the shroud that is clouding the vision of Americans to accept illegal wars and illegal rollbacks in rights at home. However, the peace & justice community must act fast, because once the 9-11 Commission closes its doors the opportunity to fight for truth . . . is over for good. Visit www.septembereleventh.org to get involved today with the 911Visibility.org movement to demand the truth that can set our nation free.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" -- Samuel Adams - Bill Douglas, National 911Visibility.org Project, www.septembereleventh.org


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

Email this article to a friend

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original CRG articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text and title of the article are not modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca . The active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG article and the author's copyright note must be clearly displayed. (For articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where applicable.) For publication of CRG articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [e-mail] .

© Copyright W DOUGLAS 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

[Hammie]

155. I call BS

If that guy gets anything right it will just be a coincidence. He even infers that the rolling blackouts that California had a couple years ago were somehow related to "Peak Oil".

It is a huge mistake to make prediction of the future based on today's technology. People have been proclaiming the doom of humanity from this catastrophe or that catastrophe my whole life. Invariably the solution to the gathering storm is some radical, and always fashionable, program. Yet here we all are. There are more of us than ever and we live so long that Social Security is probably going to disappear, with all my "voluntary" contributions, before I retire.

[BlueEyedSon]

163. "It is a huge mistake to make prediction of the future....

based on today's technology."

Uh, OK. Let's base our predictions on tomorrow's technology. What exactly would that technology be? :)

The most rigid interpretation of that statement would mean that we make no predictions, and hence and no plans, at all.

Short rant: Limits to Capitalism (Corporatism).
The invisible hand of the market place adjusts prices and causes market opportunities to be filled with hungry entrepreneurs. While ideas like just-in-time (JIT) manufacturing and JIT hiring may work fine, in the general JIT technology does not exist. All the "easy" technologies have be deployed and new cutting edge technologies require a staggering effort. Corporations (entities with the capital and manpower to undertake such large projects) do not always do what is best for the general citizenry, nor look ten years in the future. In fact, they can be depended upon to do the opposite when it conflicts with their primary goals, short term shareholder profit and growth. Historically, the government has stepped in to create a legal and regulatory framework within which the corporation operates (think minimum wage, environmental regs, FCC, antitrust, etc). As the government begins to more closely reflect the desires of the corporation, constructive direction of corporate behavior lost. The future of energy production in the US is no less than a national security issue. Why not address it with a "Manhattan Project"-like effort, or short of that, government incentives.
</rant>

Meanwhile, many of the next gen technologies ARE here and can be included in prediction/planning. Photovoltaics, wind turbines, hybrid cars, are all here. Really, and not in the way that Hydrogen Technology is "here" ('cause it ain't). And plenty of smart people are including those "tomorrow" technologies in the predicting....

[Hammie]

169. The technology of tomorrow

hasn't been invented yet. That is why it is called the technology of tomorrow. In many cases it is likely to be insightful extensions to today's technology, it others it will be something totally radical.

In my own industry even technical people immersed daily in solving technical issues have proven remarkably bad at predicting the future technology. Ever since I've been in it there are technologies that people claim are on their last generation and 8-10 technology nodes latter they are still with us because the companies that are vested in those technologies devote small armies of engineers to get ever greater levels of performance. There are other examples of technologies that really did reach their limits being replaced by other technology, often developed by some small company somewhere and other times by some large company with a strong development lab.

The point is, it is virtually impossible to predict the future.

I have no trouble imagining some alarmist guy in the late 19th century extrapolating the oat demand far into the future and predicting an oat crisis. Possibly it was even called "Peak Oats" predicting the complete collapse of civilization when the growing demand for oat production for fueling horses finally outstripped the ability of the planet to provide oats. The guy would have no idea whatsoever than in the not so distant future there would be a process for chemically fixing atmospheric nitrogen making agriculture productive beyond his imagination and that horses would be made economically obsolete by internal combustion engines.

[bpilgrim]

168. all on a hunch

well, the truth is oil is finite and the clock is ticking.

they aren't claiming all life will disapear just the means of sustaining our CURRENT way of life, which human kind has only known for a very short time, at current GROWTH comsumption levels.

there is nothing mystical about that fact cept the reasons for IGNORING/WISHING it away.

peace

[Hammie]

170. The truth is oil is finite

And how on earth did you arrive at that particular truth. There has been strong evidence for at least 20 years that oil is geochemical in origin and is being produced continuously. Apparently wells that were thought to be pumped out in the Gulf of Mexico have been replenished from deeper strata and are producing oil again. There is a lot about oil that is unknown, including where it comes from and at what rate it is generated.

Moreover, oil is just a chemical repository for energy. Therefore since the carbon and hydrogen that compose the elements of oil are, for all practical purposes, unlimited on our planet, as long as there is a source of energy, there will be no fundamental reason that oil can't be produced even by humans.

The amount of oil that can be economically extracted using current technology is almost certainly limited, but oil will be an economically viable resource for a long long time.

[BlueEyedSon]

171. You have finally shown your hand. You believe that petroleum

is continuously regenerated. Why didn't you say so at the outset?

Do tell the energy source, and the chemical process that is producing the oil? Please explain why we cannot simulate it in the lab? We have been able - in the lab - to reproduce nuclear fusion, the energy source of the sun (granted, not in a sustained and commercializable way) so what's the problem making oil?

Sorry, but there is no evidence to support your assertion. We're back to rational thought vs. superstition.

As far as how long oil will be around, lets do some math. There are about 1 Trillion barrels left. Humans use 75 million barrels per day. That's about 13,000 days, or 35 years. Note the assumptions: 1. that oil demand will remain perfectly level (it's increasing) and that 2. production will be level up until the last day of pumping. so the end is in my lifetime, and certainly in the lifetime of my kids and grand kids.

[charlie]

190. We can make oil in a lab

It's called thermal depolymerization. Cook and pressurize something carbon-based and you get petroleum.

[rman]

192. and the (energy) cost of that is irrelevant, right?

-

[charlie]

193. No

If I was reading him right, he was saying it couldn't be done in a lab. Which is incorrect. No mention of cost.

Now that you've brought it up though, there's a pilot plant in Carthage Missouri that's using offal from a neighboring Butterball turkey factory to create high grade crude oil and minerals. And it's energy self-sufficient, it uses its own created fuel to power the depolymerization. In time, the entrepreneurs hope to open many local plants near sources of municipal waste and garbage.

[LiberalPersona]

157. Humans, a sad tale of an eager explorer

The most advanced species on their planet. They built automated transportation and a way to fly without wings. They even managed to escape their planet for a short time. But in the end, the call of their creator (Earth) pulled them back down, humbled them back into a primitive existence, to be a prisoner of their own folly. A revenge for slowly feeding off it like a parasite. They reached for the heavens, but were quickly struck down along with the road leading there, forever more confined to their home to reap what they sew and to make way for a new species to rise to dominance.

[Sliverofhope]

158. Kick for Saturday morning

I refuse to let this 'die off'. Yuk yuk. Gallows humor from the emotionally mutilated.

[Robb]

173. I'm glad you kicked it

...Because I'd been meaning to read it. But now that I have, I'm convinced it's amounting to very little of any substance and a lot of rhetoric. Which isn't on its face a bad thing. His book will probably sell quite well.

My mom listens to "Coast to Coast" with Art Bell, she'll probably buy it. Good on him.

[Physicist]

175. no time to waste

I believe there are substitutes for oil, but there is no time to waste in starting to implement them. We could have liquid hydrogen fueled airplanes, but that would be wildly expensive. We could have plastics made from corn and soybeans, but I don't think that the quantities of plastics that we use are sustainable.

Basically, it comes down to reduce, reuse, recycle, replace. Save energy, buy renewable energy from your electric company (if you have that option). And start your conversations with "have to done anything to reduce your greenhouse gases lately?" - This should be a pickup line in single's bars. Seriously, women dig environmentalists (I'm already married, see it worked for me).

[bloom]

176. welcome to DU

:)

[yella_dawg]

178. Peak Oil 101

I'm stunned by this thread. Several posters recognized the impending crisis and provided some good links. Several posters responded with a variation on "Wow! I didn't know that." One poster called for an investigation at snopes.com. Huh? I honestly didn't know this was a big secret. Particularly since it threatens our immediate future.

I'm third generation Texas Oilfield Trash, so maybe I can explain some things about Peak Oil.

First, Peak Oil is not a tinfoil hat theory. It is a consequence of known natural and economic phenomenon. The Peak Oil crisis in not a Y2K scare. (Although Y2K was a real and serious threat that was averted by intensive effort by the IT community. You know, us guys that got outsourced into homelessness when it was over?) The Peak Oil crisis is predicted by sound science as being a result of total economic dependence on a finite resource. There is supposed to be enough oil to last another 30 - 50 years at present consumption levels. That's not the problem. The crisis is due to two factors. First, our economy and technological base depend on growing oil consumption. Second, the oil won't run out like a tap was turned off. Oil will become increasingly difficult and more expensive to recover, thus petroleum products will become increasingly expensive as the reserves become harder to extract.

Oil is found in geological structures that are similar to a vast sponge. Once an oil bearing structure is discovered, more and more holes are drilled to access the spongy structure. As more holes are drilled, production increases for that particular "field". At a point determined by geologists, drilling more holes provides no further advantage for recovering a field. Production for that field peaks. Soon after that point is reached, production starts to tail off. Oil is usually found "floating" on top of saltwater, so during the life of the field, more and more saltwater mixes with the oil and must be separated and disposed of (usually by pumping it back down abandoned wells). You're pumping just as hard, but getting less and less oil. At some point, this process becomes more expensive than the oil recovered, and the field is abandoned. Various chemical and mechanical techniques are used to increase the yield, but no extraction technique will recover 100% of an oil reserve. Effectively, no matter how hard you squeeze, you're never going to get the sponge squeezed dry. Thus some fraction of the 30 - 50 year reserve we have is unrecoverable.

This isn't a problem for folks who don't depend on the Texas oilfields for their livelihood. Just go drill somewhere else. Except that effectively, the entire Earth is one big oilfield, and the limitations imposed on a single field apply to the planet as well. Petroleum geologists figure we'll have punched about all the holes that are profitable, worldwide, by 2010. This is what is meant by Peak Oil. This doesn't mean that no new fields will be discovered after Peak Oil. It just means that when the Earth is viewed as an oil producing formation, we'll hit a point where we just can't suck it out of the ground any faster. We'll be plugging more wells than we're drilling.

Except that the Peak Oil date is getting pushed back and pushed back, and now some geologists are saying we've already passed the Peak. Ouch. That and the fact that some portion of the estimated reserves are unrecoverable. Double ouch. Oh yeah. Don't forget that last year, several of the majors admitted they've been inflating their reserve calculations. Double, triple ouch.

So far, the US has benefitted from a strong push in the EU to switch to diesel fuel in passenger cars. Crude petroleum is converted to various fuel products through a fairly complicated chemical and mechanical process. A refinery is designed and built to extract a certain percentage of gasoline from crude, as well as a certain percentage of diesel, a certain percentage of lubricating oil, et cetera. The changeover to diesel fuel in the EU was so rapid that they haven't been able to convert their refineries to increase the ratio of diesel to gasoline produced. Thus there is a glut of gasoline on the world market. That's about over with. Look for gas prices to rise, no matter what else happens. So far, we've been shielded from the effects of growing demand for petroleum.

Okay, so we're screwed. The production plateau is going to drive up gasoline prices as demand grows, but maybe that'll shock people into taking steps.

Not so fast. There's another little problem that figures into this. Demand growth is approaching asymptotic. Remember Algebra class? When you divide something by a number, as that number approaches zero, the result of the division approaches infinity. If you graph that, we're in the part where the line starts heading for the infinite sky. Primarily due to explosive economic growth in China. That China. The one with a population approaching a Bush Era national debt statement. The one with nuclear bombs.

Thus Bushco sets out to take over the Middle East. And all that funny noise from Russia? The guys with more oil than Saudi Arabia?

Actually, the situation is much bleaker than I've laid it out. There's the whole issue of petrodollar economics thrown in to complicate things. That's probably scarier than all the rest of this combined. And don't forget the energy cost of modern corporate agriculture. And the transportation costs to bring cheap Chinese manufactured goods back home to Wal Mart. So like it or not, the next twenty years will be spent in a fight to the death over the chance to give the sponge one last squeeze. It won't bother us much, because most of us will starve early on.

So join in with Middle Class America, grab a McMansion and a behemoth SUV and fiddle while Rome burns!

[Junkdrawer]

180. There's no doubt we're on a collision course with China, and sooner..

than you may think. Guess who is Iran's best friend? Iran is Shiite and so is Iraq, if we'd let it. I think it's going to get even uglier there pretty quickly.

[Jose Diablo]

181. Ma, head for the freeway and get out. n/t

[democratreformed]

183. I saw a lady on CSPAN talking about the oil problem this morning

Of course, she didn't actually say anything like "shortage" or "peak" as applying to the world. I turned it over in the middle of the program so I never did quite get what her point was - except maybe to sell a magazine or something. The callers asked some pretty good questions but, for the most part, she skirted around any major issues.

She did, however, pretty much tell one caller that there was no alternative to petroleum for many things. This was in response to RE technologies needing to be used more.

She also pointed out to one caller that the ANWR contains very little oil and drilling there would provide "a drop in the bucket".

She spoke about many differnt topics such as Canadian reserves (forgot what type of oil it is), the situation in Argentina(? not sure this is the country), and several others.

Like I said, I never quite figured out what her purpose was - but I was glad it was being talked about and I gained some information from watching.

[liberalpress]

184. Oil companies..

...make a boatload of money.

... oil priced beyond the ability of average people to pay (gas at more than a couple of bucks a gallon) means less money for oil companies

... oil companies will "magically" come up with an affordable alternative (priced coincidentally at about two dollars a gallon)

[Renew Deal]

187. They will go to alternatives to survive

But they will squeeze you dry first. Don't they hold many patents for efficiency and other ways to conserve fuel? They don't want you conserving. Corporate greed...

[Renew Deal]

185. Damn

I have only gotten through the first half of the first page. This is unreal. I can't wait to read more.

[Sliverofhope]

188. a kick for monday morning

I'm pleased to see this thread surviving so long, considering the potential import. We need energy, or we'll be returning to a pre-industrial stage of history.

[robertpaulsen]

189. Just read the first couple pages

At first I was skeptical reading about the end of our species. But as I read further, it gets into possible scenarios of what might happen. I thought the comparison with Y2K put it in the best perspective: "Had the Y2K come true, our civilization would have been knocked back to 1965. When the Oil Crash comes, our civilization is going to get knocked back to 1765."

I'm definitely bookmarking this to read more later. I wonder what Jimmy Carter has to say about this now. Can we still talk the better mileage? Not for much longer if this website is correct. I want to check all the links on this. This is too scary to be true and I'm starting to believe it.

[Indiana_Dem]

194. You should always read with skepticism

The aferthecrash website is an eye opener for sure. My hope is that this worst case scenario does not occur but if we keep in mind the possibility of it, we can prepare or maybe soften the blow that may come if we act soon---FAST. That's why this post must continue.....

That website has caught some of my unthinking friends' attention and hopefully it will stay in their minds so as to act and think and connect with what is going on in the world right now. The pieces of the puzzle appear to be interlocking and unfolding. Teach those who aren't aware of the worst case scenario first, then encourage activism to stop or slow the impending crisis.

Now that my shock of the site has calmed down a bit, I believe activism in politics is the only way this can be addressed. Hopefully, the scientists such as geologists can continually keep this and their numbers updated to keep us in tune.

Maybe this is something a coalition like moveon.org can address and many others like it. They already have many grassroots members that can get the word out.

[robertpaulsen]

204. You've got the right ideas

I don't know if the effects of Peak Oil will be apocalyptic, but if we continue to bury our heads in the sand, there will be hell to pay. The bottom line is: there is a finite amount of oil on this planet. Depleting it is not an if question, it's a when question. If it's sooner rather than later, we're in trouble. We've got to keep spreading the word.

[charlie]

191. One more thing to keep in mind

This doesn't have anything to do with the plausibility of the claims for a current peak oil scenario, just something to watch for.

The peak oil meme is bubbling into the mainstream media. Keep an eye on Bush mouthpieces. The justifications for the Iraq invasion have all either fallen flat or are losing steam. If Bush symps talk up peak oil and get traction in public consciousness, they could provide Bush with a blanket excuse and new popularity for his oil-driven misadventures -- Iraq, ANWR, Venezuela, (pre-911) Afghanistan.

[Sliverofhope]

196. Good to hear the meme is spreading

So it can alert us, or be debunked for sure.

[kalian]

200. Nope...I think the opposite will happen.

People aren't all that stupid. Shrub can't argue Peak Oil into
justifying perpetual war and eventual GLOBAL WAR. What most likely
will happen would be that Americans will come to their senses and
realize that the ONLY and BEST alternative would be to develope
alternative energy sources, restructure cities, etc.

Peak oil cannot be parlayed into perpetual war...

[Dissenting_Prole]

198. Get my documentary (shameless plug)

THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream

In 82 minutes you'll understand.

Available at the end of March

http://www.brant.net/gvmr/electric.htm

[Renew Deal]

199. Freeps are not that worried about it.

Silly freepers. Their borrow and spend mentality will be their demise.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1086400/posts

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067794/posts

[kalian]

201. Freepers are worried about it...

in their own narrow-minded ways.
Most are saying that oil will never "run out"...which, in essence,
is true. The issue about peak oil, and one that is missed by most
when they first read about it, is that its the end of CHEAP OIL.

Oil permeates the very fabric of "modern industrialized" society.
Thus, as energy becomes more and more expensive, prices start to
claw their way up. Remember that oil is the base for over 500,000 (!!)
products that we take for granted. Imagine when oil becomes so
expensive that it drives the manufacturers of these products out
of business... That's right, increased unemployment is one
consequence.

Its much more than just cheap gasoline folks...MUCH more...

[Indiana_Dem]

202. Yeah they're worried about it....that's why they

advocate invading those oil producing countries to maintain the business world and the stocks. They're afraid of it in an economical sense, not in a humanitarian sense, it sounds like. They would rather die fighting for the oil than attempting the more difficult avenue of R&D for renewable & alternatives. Honestly, I can't figure out how Christians can be on that side of the political spectrum.

[Renew Deal]

203. I don't think it would be easier to fight wars

Instead of doing R&D. You can give millions of people jobs researching and building cooperatively with other countries instead of killing each other. Then again, maybe it's part of the die off.

[robertpaulsen]

205. A good healthy kick...

for those who haven't read this.

[NEOBuckeye]

206. And suddenly, everything else became irrelevant.

This is the kind of stuff that creates a pit in my stomach. You know, like the Sun becoming a Red Giant some 5 billion years down the road and grilling Earth 'till it's well done. Or possibly much sooner, that big rock that's got a decent chance of nailing Earth in 2880. But at least all of that's much, much later. I always figured my descendants would figure out an answer to those problems. And now, after reading this stuff, I'm wondering if I ever get the chance to actually have descendants?

Talk about irony. We're living in THE industrialized, technological society that could go on forever, if only it doesn't run out of gas. And now, it seems, that it just might.

And to think that I wanted to be Governor of Ohio someday. Will there even be an Ohio left in 10 or 20 years to be Governor of?

Man, I wish I had read this tomorrow. This is an awful lot of deep thinking to chew on overnight. :crazy:

[bpyatt]

207. Umm we have a prototype machine that can make oil out of waste

I wouldn't fear running out of oil. I'll try to find it on the web, I was reading about it a few months ago.

[Silverhair]

208. Not prototype. Commercial size plant in operation in Carthage, MO.

Thermal Depolymerization

It seems like every few days somebody discovers the peak oil problem, panics, and posts their panic here. I think the peak oils theorists want to see the collapse of Western civilization and a return to the stone age. None of the theorists ever mention Thermal Depolymerization. And the first commercial size plant is in operation in Carthage, MO. Check out www.changingworldtech.com

Fellow science people – Please forgive the oversimplifications here, but space is limited.

A polymer is a chain of carbon and hydrogen atoms. Think of hydrocarbon or of carbohydrates. Same thing, just depends on which you want to say first. Under heat and pressure the chain can be broken into the desired lengths. The result is oil. The chemical process has been known for decades, but until recently it has taken more energy to work the process than it was worth. Now the process can be done at 85% efficiency. For those that don’t understand that, it means that it uses only 1/6 of the energy produced to run the process itself.

In practical terms that means the all carbon based trash and garbage and waste can be converted into pure water, oil, carbon black, fertilizer, and assorted minerals. This process will handle sewage, agricultural waste, old tires, medical waste, toxic wastes, (Except radioactives.) and most household garbage.

In Discover Magazine, May 2003 issue there is a lengthy article about it. Please remember that Discover is a reputable scientific magazine. It is available online only through subscription. The article states that the agricultural waste in the USA is enough that if it were processed in this manner, it would eliminate the need for any oil imports.

Detractor from this technology have attempted to shoot it down without success. One “scientist” calculated the available energy in the carbon/oxygen reactions and said that it would not be enough and that therefore TDP would not develop enough energy. He left out the energy from the hydrogen/oxygen reactions and the fact that there are about twice as many hydrogen atoms in the polymers as there are carbon.

Since the main source of input for TDP would be agricultural waste, the real source of energy is solar. The crops in the field gather solar energy, and by photosynthesis, store it in the plant itself. We harvest a tiny part of that energy as food, and waste the rest. TDP process that waste into oil.

So we have the technology to efficiently gather, process, and distribute solar energy and to do it using today’s distribution methods. It will arrive to you in a familiar form – OIL.

BTW – TDP is COMPLETELY POLLUTION FREE. In fact, it cleans up pollution since it’s input is TRASH & WASTE. It would almost completely eliminate the need for landfills, sewage treatment plants, and toxic waste sites as all of those would become valuable sources of oil.

Further, TDP helps fight global warming as, unlike fossil fuels, it does not introduce NEW carbons into the atmosphere.
And the oil produced by this process is cleaner burning too, as it is cleaner oil.

More information is available at http://www.changingworldtech.com Of course, it isn’t “Chicken Little” alarmist material, but is instead hopeful material so many will reject it. However, since the plant is designed to operate at a natural profit, then there should be lots of commercial investors. After all, how much natural profit does a landfill or a sewage plant make?

So the “Peak Oil” problem has been solved. As fossil oil does indeed become more scarce, then the profit from a TDP plant, (They can produce oil for about $16 per barrel, as well as sell the other products too.) will increases, creating more interest in the immense profits that will flow from such plants. No gov’t help really needed here.

Nor or the plants expensive to build or operate. The material for a TDP plant is old fashioned refinery type plumbing. Pipes, valves, boilers and that type stuff. The workers, except for a few chemists and other specialists, will only need the same level of education as a modern refinery worker.

So Chicken Little can calm his ruffled feathers on this one. There are other serious world problems for him to worry about, like diseases, and a coming one world gov’t, but that is a different matter.

[bpyatt]

210. I guess the question I have is

Where can I invest in the stock market with regards to this :)

[Indiana_Dem]

214. YES! Where can we invest?

This may a be a big piece of the puzzle.

I am going to my Mayor and my utilities manager about this. We have a hog processing plant in my town that has its own sewage plant right now. I have no idea where it goes.....

on edit: we also have a dump on the outskirts of our city that now looks like a mountain depending on where you are in the city. My city is in the middle of flatland Indiana that has nothing but cornfields.

Any more info or links on this would be great. I'll be looking around.

[IrateCitizen]

211. This is a fascinating find, silverhair!

I was completely unaware of this. Thanks for the link, I've begun to check it out.

While it is certainly more environmentally-friendly than the current fuel setup we have, I fail to see how it can claim to be "zero-emission" if it would continue the use of internal-combustion engines to convert the final oil product into energy. Or are we simply talking about the PROCESS here by which the fuel is produced from trash.

However, as a civil engineer who is currently working in the landfill field, this kind of development is a bit disconcerting, as it has the capability of putting me out of a job!!! ;-)

In any event, could such a technology be used to actually remove waste from existing dump and landfill sites to convert existing trash into fuel? That is certainly something worth exploring.

I'm also a big believer in the need to conserve and find greater efficiency vis a vis energy usage. Even though this would certainly be a positive step, we desperately need to reduce the amount of raw materials we use on this earth along with the waste that inevitably results from the extraction of those materials and manufacturing processes.

[bpyatt]

209. Oil from garbage

http://portland.indymedia.org/es/2003/06/266167.shtml

[Sliverofhope]

212. kick

Discussion is always a good thing.

[democratdemagogue]

215. alternative resources

Humans lived for a long time without oil. Either something else will come up or we walk. Maybe that will help solve the obesity problem. But to think that the world will end? What a ridiculous statement.

[vista1000]

217. there is no equivalent energy replacement

Will the world end?

Society as we know it will certainly cease to exist.

"There is no equivalent energy replacement - this is not a debatable issue, this is an unpleasant fact."

Herein lies the problem. Everything is tied to hydrocarbons and nothing has an energy return as high as oil and gas.

"The discovery of fossil fuels, the greatest energy subsidy ever known enabled the transformation of civilization itself into a form never before seen: industrialism"

"Petro-chemical products touch every aspect of our lives - the car we drive (gasoline, interior mouldings, exterior coatings), clothing, stereo and computer housing, paint on the walls of our houses and offices, the plastic packaging used for food, the shampoo bottle in the shower. The list is endless"

"The steep expansion in scale of the human population size and the consumption of resources that has characterized modern societies is almost entirely due to industrialism and the use of fossil fuels. And many of the largest problems we are to likely encounter in this century will be due to the depletion of those fuels"


Here is an good summary on Peak oil.

http://www.newsgateway.ca/peak_oil.htm

[Renew Deal]

216. BP's outlook on Oil/Energy

http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=95&contentId=2006480