Feb. 2005 SAIC Report on Peak Oil to Department of Energy

[GettysbergII]

(I'm posting this here also because of SAIC's connection to Electronic Voting and as a possible explanation why the ruling class elements in both party's may no longer plan on allowing free elections)

Here's a link to a 91 Page Report prepared in Feb of 2005 for the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) by Science Applications International Coporation (SAIC). If your not familiar with SAIC, it's one of the premier stealth organizations that the DoD and CIA funnel 'sensitive work' to and many a ex-CIA director has sat on its board of directors. It's not a coincidence that SIAC backwards is CIAs. This is a serious rightwing perspective report.

http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf
http://www.energybulletin.net/4638.html
INTRODUCTION

Oil is the lifeblood of modern civilization. It fuels the vast majority of the world’s mechanized transportation equipment – Automobiles, trucks, airplanes, trains, ships, farm equipment, the military, etc. Oil is also the primary feedstock for
many of the chemicals that are essential to modern life. This study deals with the upcoming physical shortage of world conventional oil -- an event that has the potential to inflict disruptions and hardships on the economies of every country.
The earth’s endowment of oil is finite and demand for oil continues to increase with time. Accordingly, geologists know that at some future date, conventional oil supply will no longer be capable of satisfying world demand. At that point world conventional oil production will have peaked and begin to decline.

A number of experts project that world production of conventional oil could occur in the relatively near future, as summarized in Table I-1.1 Such projections are fraught with uncertainties because of poor data, political and institutional selfinterest, and other complicating factors. The bottom line is that no one knows with certainty when world oil production will reach a peak,2 but geologists have
no doubt that it will happen.

Table I-1. Predictions of World Oil Production Peaking

Projected Date Source of Projection
2006-2007 Bakhitari
2007-2009 Simmons
After 2007 Skrebowski
Before 2009 Deffeyes
Before 2010 Goodstein
Around 2010 Campbell
After 2010 World Energy Council
2010-2020 Laherrere
2016 EIA (Nominal)
After 2020 CERA
2025 or later Shell
No visible Peak Lynch

1A more detailed list is given in the following chapter in Table II-2.
2 In this study we interchangeably refer to the peaking of world conventional oil production as “oil
peaking” or simply as “peaking.”

Our aim in this study is to
• Summarize the difficulties of oil production forecasting;
• Identify the fundamentals that show why world oil production peaking is
such a unique challenge;
• Show why mitigation will take a decade or more of intense effort;
• Examine the potential economic effects of oil peaking;
• Describe what might be accomplished under three example mitigation
scenarios.
• Stimulate serious discussion of the problem, suggest more definitive
studies, and engender interest in timely action to mitigate its impacts.

[The Doctor.]

1. So what is your view on 'Peak Oil'?

Do you believe it is a real threat, or do you believe in Abiotic Petroleum Genesis?

[GettysbergII]

4. Well I'm certainly no geologist but as far as I can see the consensus

of the respected scientific geological community does not support Abiotic Petroleum Genesis. Let's hope they're wrong but if I was a betting man I'd bet against the validity Abiotic Petroleum Genesis.

I actually think there might be promise in the long run for Zero Point Energy and renewable sources of energy like the Solar Tower but we should have committed to alternative energy research and development instead of the PNAC's plan of world oil field domination.

One thing is certain: It's time for the sheep to look up.

[The Doctor.]

17. Zero Point Energy?

Do you mean fusion?

If so, we're only a decade or two away from being able to construct working reactors on a large scale.
The ITER project should have a home by the end of the year, then we should see some useful test results by 2007-08.

With energy production at 1-100th the cost, we could lyse seawater wholesale and become a hydrogen-powered planet.

If Petroleum were formed in the mantle as the APG theory suggests, then an unlimited supply is bad news for our ecosystem.

Oil is lose-lose.

And the sheep won't look up until it's way too late.
Sheeple don't think farther ahead than the next quarter.

[GettysbergII]

18. Zero Point Energy is pretty far out thein quantum physics but I have alot

faith in the quantum physics crowd. It sounds pretty preposterous at first and it certainly is a longshot but here's some backgound on it.

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ZPE/

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPEpaper.html

http://users.erols.com/iri/EnewsApril5,2004.htm#2

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/events/conferences/2004/teslatech_SLC/TomValone/ZPE_Extraction_QuantumVacuum.htm

[The Doctor.]

23. Ahhh, that...

Physics is an interest of mine, but I've not gleaned enough yet to state an opinion on the prospects of this research. I'm certainly an amateur.

I see the 'zero-point' field as where this inverted spheroid of a universe turns itself into existence.
I believe that the law of the cosmological constant utilizes time as a dimension far more than we realize. (time*Mass=gravity and what...)

I'll have to explore this a bit more - this is the first I've heard of serious 'zero-point' energy studies.

Oh, and please feel free to point out where I may be wrong - I don't know all that much.

[GettysbergII]

26. I'm no expert myself but then I don't know that much about coal

mining either and that's never stopped me from having an opinion about it.

As to the zero point field, as you suggest it certainly must have its basis in the same Big Bang that jump-started our universe. I'll be interested to hear your take on it.

[kster]

2. Ruling class

"(I'm posting this here also because of SAIC's connection to Electronic Voting and as a possible explanation why the ruling class elements in both party's may no longer plan on allowing free elections)"

So what does it matter if repubs or dems are the party that wins in the elections if it does not matter?

[GettysbergII]

5. We, the people, need to take control of the DNP or else build a new

party. Frankly I think most middle/working class people are sick of both parties as they are now. I want universal healthcare, the war ended, a deep commitment to alternative energy, the end of the privatization/piratization thing, a return of the media to the fairness doctrine and a paper ballot hand counted among other things and I ain't going to settle for less.

[galloglas]

8. BullsEye !! n/t

[kster]

12. VOTE FRAUD,VOTE FRAUD,VOTE FRAUD

WE ARE GOING TO GET THEM.NICE TRY. See Ya.

[NAO]

3. SAIC is CIAs spelled backwards

They were also the ones contracted to do much of the psychic warrior research - remote viewing, telekinesis, astral projection, mind control, etc.

For what it's worth.

[GettysbergII]

6. No sh*t! I didn't know they were into that. What ain't they into?

[NAO]

10. Openness, Charity Work, and Promoting Progressive Causes

Those are some things SAIC are NOT into.

[GettysbergII]

11. LMAO! Along with truth, justice and the American way.

[kster]

7. OIL SHORTAGE 101:

OIL SHORTAGE 101:

A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.

~~~

Well, there's a very simple answer.
~~~
Nobody bothered to check the oil.
~~~
We just didn't know we were getting low.

~~~
The reason for that is purely

geographical.
~~~
Our OIL is located in
~~~
Alaska
~~~
California
~~~
Oklahoma
and
TEXAS
~~~
~~~
Our
DIPSTICKS
are located in
Washington DC

[dcfirefighter]

9. There are relatively easy solutions

But they will require a more distributed economy, favoring smaller companies, less transportation (local economy), and a loss of profits by companies devoted solely to oil.

Water: Using fewer petroleum products should increase potable freshwater supplies. Worst case, alternative energy can perform purification and desalinization.

Food: Sustainable Agriculture can produce more food per acre, but it tends to require more intensive use of labor. It also seems more practical with smaller, individually owned farms, rather than corporate agriculture. Of course we have to fight the GM and Patented seed stock fights as well.

Clothing & Manufactured Goods: Low energy goods, natural fibers, locally produced, and long-life goods require fewer energy inputs, but higher labor.

Homes: Low energy and long life (green) building materials, as well as intensive urban development surrounded by local agriculture, all decrease energy usage.

Transport: Mass Transit, denser populations, and mixed use development reduce transport costs and energy used. Rail between urban nodes is very efficient, especially when groups of shippers and receivers are grouped close together due to intensive urbanization. Trains can be powered from grid sources.

Energy: Solar, Wind, and NUCLEAR. Portable energy can be provided by biodiesel derived from algae.

interesting link: www.carfree.com
US pop in 2050, 350 Million.
80% living in mostly small, but dense cities & towns covering 4,100 square miles (0.1% of US land area)
875,000 square miles of cropland (25% of US land area)
875,000 square miles of grazing land (25%)
15,000 square miles of algae ponds (0.4%)
1.75M square miles of parks, forests, and wilderness (~50%)
no suburbs

[GettysbergII]

13. Every day we wait to begin implementing the changes necessary

to create your solutions is one day closer to the day we no longer have enough cheap energy to make the transition with having a few billion people die off.

On the other hand if we do make the transition, the world will be a place where humans have genuinely learned to place cooperation ahead of competition. It will be a much nicer place to live.

Have you every read The Post Corporate World by Korten? Great read!

[organik]

19. Go vegan.

Grazing land?

WHY?

Everybody knows the logical human evolution is to a vegetarian (vegan) diet.

http://veganlinks.org

Been vegan for 10 years, vegetarian for 15, feel great, love it.

How many hundreds of lives, thousands of gallons of water, trees, fossil fuel I have saved I do not know, but I'm DEFINITELY making a difference, in a large way, with VERY LITTLE EFFORT.

Try it!

[dcfirefighter]

28. Couldn't give up cheese

But you're right, it's much more 'expensive' in terms of resource use to feed animals to eat them than it is to eat plants.

[galloglas]

14. Does anyone know about Gull Island, Alaska ??

Just fishing for authentication, here.

I know several folks who were in the Foreign Services & State Department around the 1960s, civilians who had military service in Korea as veterans. One was actually *on site* at the time that a well was drilled in Gull Island, Alaska (and the others claim knowledge).

The story goes like this.
A test well was drilled on Gull Island and the pressure was *so* great that the "Oil Powers that Be" said "Cap it!!". And the well, and most information about it, has been capped ever since.

I don't know about oil but my source does. Since he was a civilian he was not bound by any secrecy oaths (kind of like the 1947 Flying Saucer stories where most eyewitnesses were military and bound not to speak) but has only gone public since he reached his seventies. At $57 a barrel, he is going bananas about it now!

He seems credible to me... but he will never be on an interview at 60 Minutes because the story is going to take him 90 minutes to tell (a relic of his Southern heritage and inability to tell the story without putting in *every* detail), whether one wants it to take that long or not. Ask questions, brings digressions, takes longer...

If someone was dying of thirst, this guy could not sell water... on the other hand, he's not *trying* to. And, at the end, he is believable or not. And, I come away with the impression that he *does* know something. He just can't figure how to tell it.

Bottom line is this.
Supposed well head pressure indicates a field bigger than anything imaginable. Bigger than any *ever* in the US. And, oddly, it is only about 3 miles from the Alaska Pipeline (which was built *after* the Gull Island well was drilled).

So, anyone know anything about this??
I've looked at Snopes and find nothing. Googling brings up a string in Freepers and a book by a "Lindsay Williams" a pastor who was on site.

[kster]

15. This is "2004 election results and discussion".nt

[GettysbergII]

16. Wow! Interesting story and certainly worth exploring

I see if I can dig up anything on it too.

[Bill Bored]

20. Nano Tech and a Few Other Ideas

I believe in peak oil. I think we are going to be in deep doo-doo. I think this is part of the motivation for the apparent excesses of the Bush administration and possibly some of the Democrats.

Read "The Party's Over" and "Power Down" by Richard Heinberg.

Jimmy Carter tried to address this problem in the 1970s but Ronald Reagan pooh-poohed it. Remember, it was "morning in America?" No solar panels on HIS White House!

Realistically I think there are a few technologies that could help. I list these in no particular order:

Zinc, but NOT hydrogen, fuel cells.
Nano technology yielding much cheaper solar electric cells and panels.
Nano tech manufacturing processes which will use much less energy to make "stuff' than we use now.
Nano tech batteries for increased storage and lower weight and cost.
Wind energy.
Superior insulation of some kind.

I see the biggest problems as food production and transportation and probably home heating and cooling. But I have a relatively optimistic view about electricity production because wind and solar energy can be used to make more wind and solar energy and after a few more major blackouts, people will learn to conserve.

The Zinc fuel cell is a much cheaper alternative to hydrogen, which does not even exist on its own on our planet in any usable quantities. Zinc on the other hand is plentiful and electrons don't care which element they come from.

I think some economic change is inevitable, but perhaps we can survive if we can grow enough food and transport it to where it's needed. Other transportation will likely be a lower priority, although with the free-market-obsessed Republicans and some Democrats in charge, fuel may very well be squandered as it is now by SUVs, incandescent light bulbs and joy riding at the expense of the delivery of the essentials. So we will all have to learn how to grow and store some food and not steal it from one another. I expect that water will be a problem in some areas though.

The above is of course an oversimplification, but it's the only scenario that lets me sleep at night!

[GettysbergII]

21. Nicely stated, Bill

I'm a big Heinburg fan and have both his books. A bunch of us in my neighborhood in Chicago just started the The Southside Oil Awareness Group and we're, among other activities, showing the End of Suburbia and a shorter 30 minute Heinburg DVD to whoever we can get to watch.

I think its amazing how closely SAICs presentation on when world oil production will peak apes Heinburg's conclusions. Obviously they differ by miles in terms of solutions.

Personally I think awareness of Peak Oil theory by the elite in what's driving the movement to fascism in this country, including the Iraq War, the election fraud, and the piratization of Middle America.

[Bill Bored]

22. Still reading Power Down

But yeah! It all fits, doesn't it? We probably could have had 20% renewable energy in a few years if Kerry had been elected, or Gore re-elected! But NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Heinberg hasn't mentioned nano tech that I've seen, so I thought I would.

Also, I haven't seen him mention the possibility of using renewable energy to make more of it. I.e., use wind and solar electric to power the factories to make more wind and solar electric equipment, etc. I realize it's a huge undertaking, but in theory it could work, can't it?

[GettysbergII]

24. Sounds great as long as we start immediately!!

Also, I haven't seen him mention the possibility of using renewable energy to make more of it. I.e., use wind and solar electric to power the factories to make more wind and solar electric equipment, etc. I realize it's a huge undertaking, but in theory it could work, can't it?

I think that's a great idea. I believe the problem as Heinburg expresses it is that if you doubled the current combined wind and solar enery output and then doubled it again, that will represent still be less than 1% of U.S. usage. We should keep in mind of course that once it's at one percent doubling it 5 more times would put it at 32% and that can happen pretty quick as long as the U.S. commits to such a policy right now with the same level of mobilization as we have with the Operation Iraqi Liberation. However once we are on the slippery downhill slope on the other side of peak oil production we're pretty much stuck just using what energy is available to keep from having our society completely collapse.

I think the nanotechnology can be a great tool too. Have you looked at the Solar Tower electric generator yet. Very cool. Australia is putting up the first fully functional one now.

http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/
http://www.enviromission.com.au/

[Bill Bored]

25. Solar tower -- cool!

This combines wind and solar! Of course traditional wind energy comes solar warming of the earth as well, but this thing captures it in a controlled space. I like it!

There is also an Aussie guy who wants to capture wind energy from the jet stream, which moves at about 100 mph! A tether would conduct the electricity down to the ground and keep the airborne windmill from flying off. This could be much more powerful than terrestrial windmills. Power varies with the cube of the wind speed.

Anyway, enough of this dribble. Back to that STOLEN election!

[GettysbergII]

27. Got a link for jet stream idea, Bill?

I'd love to look into it.

Then indeed, back to the STOLEN election. (An now that they know they can steal elections, it seems they're trying to steal everything that's not nailed down)

[Bill Bored]

32. Yep:

http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

[dcfirefighter]

30. Solar tower is neat, but

It generates 200MW from 10,000 ha, or 20 kW/ha.
Wind power MIGHT get 10 kW/ha.
Commercial PV Cells might get 300 kW/ha (but they'd be REAL expensive).
Algae Ponds (for Biodiesel) might get 160 kW/ha
Nuclear gets 3000 or more kw/ha (based on total site size)

[Bill Bored]

33. Commercial grade wind turbines

do about 1 MW each and take up relatively little area. Less than 1 ha I would think. Where'd you get your 10 kW?

[dcfirefighter]

35. Actually I think GE makes a 3.6 MW wind turbine

It's huge. Nameplate power is a peak rating, typical output is usually 1/5th that, and depends on an optimal site. Spacing has to be limited, and I don't know the rule, but I'd guess it was some multiple of rotor span.

I googled 'wind power per acre':

http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw84.htm

"Empirical data now shows that the amount of power actually produced in existing wind farms is 5kw per acre."
- http://www.tsaugust.org/False%20Promise%20Wind%20Power.htm

And I multiplied by 2 for the sake of being conservative (in pointing out how low output is) and optimistic.

That being said, there are some sites where wind power should be generated. I especially think that they be great on farms and whatnot, even if only to power the farm itself (think of all the old great plains windmills, prior to Rural Electrification).

[GettysbergII]

40. With the Solar Tower its possible to still grow crops on the area beneath

the plastic 'cover' or at least on a significant part. As I understand it, the covered area would function as a kind of green house with the moisture being recycled.

I wonder if it might not actually be possible to grow crops on the land covered by a solar tower where otherwise the land is not particularly arable.

At any rate there's a jpeg of the land beneath the Spanish working model of the Solar Tower at following address:
wire0.ises.org/wire/independents/ImageLibrary.nsf/DefaultView/A892385128ECAD96C12569840050A66F/$File/glass_roof_from_inside.jpg

[dcfirefighter]

41. I've been looking at that

I thought that at first, but now have my doubts, unless there were two transparent covers.

If the glazed area were used as a greenhouse, quite a bit of moisture from the plants would be pulled out by the solar generated wind, and lost to the atmosphere at the top of the flue. Likewise, effective greenhouses must be able to control ventilation for the sake of the plants, rather than having a constant wind through them.

That being said, if the 'greenhouse' area had:
Sky/Sun
-----------------Glass
Moving Airspace ----> Turbines --> flue
-----------------More Glass or plastic
Algae-filled water
-----------------

and the algae was harvested to produce biodiesel, the 20,000 acre greenhouse could produce 300 million gallons of fuel, 1500 per household supported by the tower, more than enough to cover their tranportation or even heating needs (though solar power is particularly efficient at heating homes and water).

[GettysbergII]

42. Watching the Windows Media "View an Artist Rendition of the Solar Tower "

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

I noticed that they show the temperature near the circumference of the circle as being 30 degrees Celius and gradually warming to 70 degrees Celius at the center by the turbine intakes then cools to 50 degrees at the top of the tower. I wonder if the wind is also gradualluy increasing, with the wind near the circumference being relatively stable and slowly increasing as the air heats and expands the closer it gets to the turbines. So maybe a certain portion of the outer area would have stable enough temperature and wind for limited harvestable algae/plant growth. However if that is so I don't understand why Enviromission wouldn't promote the idea other than in the artist's rendition. Likewise the artist rendition presents the Solar Tower as a possible tourist attraction.

Incidently, I love the algae for biodiesal idea. Sounds like you've put alot of thought into developing cost effective renewable energy sources

[dcfirefighter]

29. Free Market could solve our problems

but we don't have a free market - every one of our oil problems stems from the externalities associated with its use. Capture those externalities, and the free market will fix the problems.

A Carbon Tax would be a good example of this. Much more effective than merely requiring certain mpg standards, as people will just drive more.

[Bill Bored]

31. Spoken like a true Libertarian, except for the Tax part!

I agree that the market is totally distorted by not counting the cost of the military for example, which is increasingly necessary to maintain the fossil fuel economy. And we should find other ways to measure things besides just money. Environmental impact and health effects are certainly some!

[dcfirefighter]

36. Nobody said libertarians could be progressive

n/t

[dcfirefighter]

37. or couldn't be

whatever, i was sleepy.

I support individual freedoms, but won't trade government intervention in my life for corporate intervention. I believe a *real* free market would provide a good standard of living to all people. I don't oppose a social safety net. I consider myself both a liberal and a libertarian. Not a 'L' but an 'l'.

[GettysbergII]

39. Bill and DC, are you guys fsamiliar with David Korten's work?

The Post Corporate World is an outstanding book that addresses these issues:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1887208038/qid=1115010612/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-5681945-5085404
Many people have winced at Korton's now ecological turn. They would rather he simply kept to pure economics, facts and theories, and dump the New Age spin he picked up from biologist Mae-Wan Ho. They were hoping that "The Post-Corporate World" would simply be Part II of his last sizzler, "When Corporations Ruled the World." They see the soft-headed ecological metaphor as a meaningless distraction that will only serve the interests of the enemy -- i.e., number-crunching CEOs, who have no time (after all, time is money) for ecological quackery.

In my opinion, "When Corporations Ruled the World" does not need a sequel. It did the job perfectly. Nor will taking a simply factual stand against the global corporate juggernaut fundamentally alter things. This is what Korten is driving at in his book. He believees we need to understand the world on radically different terms. We need to approach reality with a new story and a new bag of metaphors -- because the old ones have not been doing the job. If you simply want a truckload of facts disavowing capitalism's ability to meet human needs (and by that, I mean all humans -- not just 1 percent of the population), read his first book. It will not only alarm you, but it will arm you to the hilt with anti-corporate firepower for the next time you enter a debate on capitalism's merits. If you want a richer analysis of the inherent paradoxes of capitalism, and a more thorough understanding of what is necessary to remedy the current situation, read this book. The books serve two different functions: The last book was by and large descriptive, whereas this book is heavy on prescription.

Despite what our hard-headed, number-crunching economists might tell you, capitalism is indeed a lot like a cancer. "Cancer occurs when genetic damage causes a cell to forget that it is part of a larger body, the healthy function of which is essential to its own survival. The cell begins to seek its own growth without regard to the consequences for the whole, and ultimately destroys the body that feeds it. As I came to learn more about the course of cancer's development within the body, I cam to realize that the reference to capitalism as a cancer is less a metaphor than a clinical diagnosis of a pathology to which market economic are prone in the absence of adequate citizen and governmental oversight."

[MontageOfFreedom]

34. It just gets more and more astonishing.....

Each and every single time I read it and look over the entire report. I can't understand how it could go secret for so long, ever since 1980 PNAC has been forming and wanted to control Peak Oil.

[GettysbergII]

38. Like the Billionaire for Bush say " Democracy is not for everyone"

I think many of us snoozed through the nineties assuming there were honest voices in the media and government that would sound the alarm and once the alarm was sounded the media and government would do the right thing and some kind of 'Watergate' investiagtion would ensue or barring that the minority would scream bloody murder but there's been to few voices and collectively we been sleeping mush too soundly.