[Jane of Arc]

Oil is running out. Experts on all sides say the world will reach 'peak oil' as soon as 2010 with a steady decline of availability and sky-rocketing prices. (Peak oil means that even though there will be oil remaining in the ground, drilling that oil will use more energy (oil) than the oil obtained.) At that point industrialized societies will start to collapse returning to pre-oil status of the 19th century. There are no developed alternative energy sources in place to even begin to replace the huge consumption of oil. Our society and our complete standard of living are dependent on oil. It's rarely addressed in the "mainstream media", but we are in a crisis. Here's my question:

Would the richest, most technological, most militaristically powerful, most oil dependent country in the world just allow itself to collapse first?

[snowdog]

Would the richest, most technological, most militaristically powerful, most oil dependent country in the world just allow itself to collapse first?


well, maybe you should do a bit more research there WHAT? and you would
then find that it is projected that CHina will be the worlds number 1 oil
dependant country in approx 5 years.

[sweetpea]

Oil is running out. Experts on all sides say the world will reach 'peak oil' as soon as 2010 with a steady decline of availability and sky-rocketing prices. (Peak oil means that even though there will be oil remaining in the ground, drilling that oil will use more energy (oil) than the oil obtained.) At that point industrialized societies will start to collapse returning to pre-oil status of the 19th century. There are no developed alternative energy sources in place to even begin to replace the huge consumption of oil. Our society and our complete standard of living are dependent on oil. It's rarely addressed in the "mainstream media", but we are in a crisis. Here's my question:

Would the richest, most technological, most militaristically powerful, most oil dependent country in the world just allow itself to collapse first?


How do I say this, nicely?
Your comment about running out of peak oil by 2010 and experts agreeing......I don't believe you.

[Jane of Arc]

well, maybe you should do a bit more research there WHAT? and you would
then find that it is projected that CHina will be the worlds number 1 oil
dependant country in approx 5 years.

I promise you I am well-researched on this topic. And I guarantee I have read more books on the subject of oil depletion and peak oil from varying perspectives than you have.

You are correct that China is predicted to tie or slightly pass the US in oil consumption due to it's population growth, increased industrial growth and the rise of household income. Chinese people are buying cars rapidly.

But this is NOT the point of the thread. Maybe I wasn't clear. There is a world race for oil because peak oil is arriving soon. (some say it's here). Regardless of who will use more oil in the future ... presently, we use far more oil than any other country in the world. Our society is at risk. Everything requires oil. There is no industry that isn't oil dependent. Agriculture is oil dependent. The military is dependent on oil. The space program is dependent on oil. The government is dependent on oil. All plastics are oil based. We can't heat our homes, cook our food, feed our dog, drive our car, refrigerate without oil. To create electricity you need oil ... the very computer I am typing on depends on oil.

There is a limited amount of fossil fuel.

Would the richest, most technological, most militaristically powerful, most oil dependent country in the world just allow itself to collapse first?



The Top 10 Consumers of Oil
Country % of Energy Consumed

United States
25 %

China
9.9%

Russia
7 %

Japan
5.8 %

Germany
3.9 %

India
3.1 %

France
2.9 %

U.K.
2.6 %

Canada
2.5 %

Korea
1.9 %

[Jane of Arc]

How do I say this, nicely?
Your comment about running out of peak oil by 2010 and experts agreeing......I don't believe you.

I find your posts reasonable and logical, sweet pea ... AND ... the only conservative in this forum who ever gave me a compliment. :) I guess the others are just "conserving".


We are not running out of 'peak oil'. We are running out of accessible oil. Peak oil means it's too expensive to get the oil out of the ground. The date 2010 ... I said, 'as soon as 2010' ... is arbitrary. Alarmists say we have reached peak oil now. Oil company executives and their scientists say we have 50 years. Moderate, independent scientists put it between the years 2020 to 2025.

At any rate the end is coming fast and there is no energy substitute in place to even begin to compensate for oil. And as snowdog added, China is guzzling oil quickly.

When you say, "you don't believe me" ... what is that based on?

Are you familiar with the peak oil crisis debate?

Do you need me to supply you with reliable sources?

[snowdog]

I find your posts reasonable and logical, sweet pea ... AND ... the only conservative in this forum who ever gave me a compliment. :) I guess the others are just "conserving".



What? I really wish you would go back a few post and re-read my post.
on at least 3 occasions that I have found, I had complimented you on
what I felt were either good Posts or agreeing with your assesment.
:)

[sweetpea]

I find your posts reasonable and logical, sweet pea ... AND ... the only conservative in this forum who ever gave me a compliment. I guess the others are just "conserving".
--Thanks


We are not running out of 'peak oil'. We are running out of accessible oil. Peak oil means it's too expensive to get the oil out of the ground. The date 2010 ... I said, 'as soon as 2010' ... is arbitrary.
---Then you should have said that.

Alarmists say we have reached peak oil now.
--I would argue that alarmists say that scientists agree that we could reach peak oil as soon as 2010.
It depends on which scientist you listen to.
Here is a good link in my opinion. http://www.spe.org/spe/jsp/basic/0,,1104_1008218_1109511,00.html

Oil company executives and their scientists say we have 50 years. Moderate, independent scientists put it between the years 2020 to 2025.
--Again, it depends on who you are listening to and choosing to believe.

At any rate the end is coming fast and there is no energy substitute in place to even begin to compensate for oil. And as snowdog added, China is guzzling oil quickly.
--I would agree that teh end of oil is coming. How fast is debatable. Did you ever consider new technologies to bring up reserves that were once considered unfeasible to tap?

When you say, "you don't believe me" ... what is that based on?
---It's based on the alarmist tone of 'scientists agree.....as soon as 2010'

Are you familiar with the peak oil crisis debate?
---which one?

Do you need me to supply you with reliable sources?
--No. Do you need me to supply you with some?

[sweetpea]

One final note regarding oil.

Can you name the last President before GWB to even have an energy policy?

Hint, it is before 1992.

[Jane of Arc]

What? I really wish you would go back a few post and re-read my post.
on at least 3 occasions that I have found, I had complimented you on
what I felt were either good Posts or agreeing with your assesment.
:)

I do apologize. Yes you have snowdog!

[Jane of Arc]

sweetpea~

I am not an expert on the pending oil crisis, although I have read quite a few books from all sides on the subject. The best, most balanced book I've read is by Richard Heinberg called, Peak Oil.

According to Richard Heinberg and others there are no replacements for our oil consumption in place to date. Often alternative souces require oil in their manufacturing and production as in solar products. Wind power is promising, but only useful in certain environments. Hydrogen power is problematic as well. Nuclear power ... well, we all know the serious issues with the by-products and it requires the use of oil. Coal is not an option because of the gross pollutive properties and it requires an enegy source, oil, to mine it.

One of the biggest issues is what do we put in our cars and trucks and ariplanes and ships to fuel them. Vegetable alternatives again require oil to farm the product.

I haven't read of any "new technologies" to get the oil out of the ground that don't require the use of machines using oil. What are you referring to?

I think we both agree there is a crisis on the near horizon if we are to believe the experts.

It should be interesting.

[Jane of Arc]

One final note regarding oil.

Can you name the last President before GWB to even have an energy policy?

Hint, it is before 1992.

That would be President Nixon who launched Project Independence, with the goal of achieving energy self-sufficiency by 1980. President Nixon also established the Energy Policy Office. He is a progressive compared to the Stone Age policies of our current president.

[sweetpea]

Bush 1 had a half-assed policy.

Carter, Clinton had nothing. Did not feel it important enough to have an energy policy, I guess.

Did you criticize them?

GWB also has an energy policy. You may not agree with it, but at least he recognizes the need to have one.

[sweetpea]

sweetpea~

I am not an expert on the pending oil crisis, although I have read quite a few books from all sides on the subject.
Then this quote is a bit presumptuous. "Oil is running out. Experts on all sides say the world will reach 'peak oil' as soon as 2010 with a steady decline of availability and sky-rocketing prices."
Don't tell me oil is running out when you don't know nor does the scientific community. You can find scientists since the 50's that said we were running out of oil in the next ten years. They have all been wrong.

The best, most balanced book I've read is by Richard Heinberg called, Peak Oil.
---Richard Heinburg. Some of his beleifs are "reduce the human population humanely but systematically over time"; "economic sacrifice in order to reduce per-capita resource usage in wealthy countries" (i.e. the US is evil, and too rich. We should be crippled economically so other nice countries like China can have more natural resources.); "distribute resources more equitably" (more of teh same from the previous paren). Powerdown is the term he uses. Heinburg is a hypocritical collectivism freak at best and an agrarian communist that wants nothing more than the end of western culture as we know it at worst. The Heinburg's of the world have come and gone since the 50's.

According to Richard Heinberg and others there are no replacements for our oil consumption in place to date. Often alternative souces require oil in their manufacturing and production as in solar products. Wind power is promising, but only useful in certain environments. Hydrogen power is problematic as well. Nuclear power ... well, we all know the serious issues with the by-products and it requires the use of oil. Coal is not an option because of the gross pollutive properties and it requires an enegy source, oil, to mine it.
--Yep, According to Heinburg we should all start thinking about living in holes in the ground and count on currency, biotech and information technology to all disappear. Believe hime if you want. Live in fear if you want. By the way Heinburg also believes in systematic population control. Is he also going to be the person who decides who lives, dies, and reproduces?

One of the biggest issues is what do we put in our cars and trucks and ariplanes and ships to fuel them. Vegetable alternatives again require oil to farm the product.

I haven't read of any "new technologies" to get the oil out of the ground that don't require the use of machines using oil. What are you referring to?
---Keep believing in Heinburg and start thinking about how he proposes the population is controlled.

I think we both agree there is a crisis on the near horizon if we are to believe the experts.
---If I haven't made it clear already. Heinburg is not an expert he is what I stated above.

It should be interesting.

[Jane of Arc]

Don't tell me oil is running out when you don't know nor does the scientific community. You can find scientists since the 50's that said we were running out of oil in the next ten years. They have all been wrong.

I am pretty sure you are confusing Heinberg with Hubbert's Peak oil theory. All the governments of industrialized countries are presently dealing with the pending crisis. Believe what you want.

---Richard Heinburg. Some of his beleifs are "reduce the human population humanely but systematically over time"; "economic sacrifice in order to reduce per-capita resource usage in wealthy countries" (i.e. the US is evil, and too rich. We should be crippled economically so other nice countries like China can have more natural resources.); "distribute resources more equitably" (more of teh same from the previous paren). Powerdown is the term he uses. Heinburg is a hypocritical collectivism freak at best and an agrarian communist that wants nothing more than the end of western culture as we know it at worst. The Heinburg's of the world have come and gone since the 50's.

First of all his name is spelled Heinberg. NOT Heinburg. Are you sure you have the right author? Obviously you haven't read his book. It's not even close to anything he says.


--Yep, According to Heinburg we should all start thinking about living in holes in the ground and count on currency, biotech and information technology to all disappear. Believe hime if you want. Live in fear if you want. By the way Heinburg also believes in systematic population control. Is he also going to be the person who decides who lives, dies, and reproduces?

None of this is true. None of this is in the book I read. Don't worry I don't live in fear. Thanks for the concern.

[sweetpea]

I am pretty sure you are confusing Heinberg with Hubbert's Peak oil theory. All the governments of industrialized countries are presently dealing with the pending crisis. Believe what you want.
--No confusion here. HeinbErg is exactly what I said he is. If he is what you are referring to when you source the 'scientific community' then you are confused.


First of all his name is spelled Heinberg. NOT Heinburg. Are you sure you have the right author? Obviously you haven't read his book. It's not even close to anything he says.
--Sorry for the misspell. However, I did read transcripts of his speeches and interviews. Maybe you should pony up on this 'balanced' author. You can start here:
http://www.primitivism.com/primitivist-critique.htm
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=022


sweetpea:Quote:
--Yep, According to Heinburg we should all start thinking about living in holes in the ground and count on currency, biotech and information technology to all disappear. Believe hime if you want. Live in fear if you want. By the way Heinburg also believes in systematic population control. Is he also going to be the person who decides who lives, dies, and reproduces?

What: None of this is true. None of this is in the book I read. Don't worry I don't live in fear. Thanks for the concern.


It's true. He said it. He espouses it. If this is your 'balanced' author you may want to reconsider.

sorry about the goofy looking quote boxes.

[Jane of Arc]

sweatpea~

I assure you that if you read his book, Peak Oil, and not swipe random information from the internet (that first one "Primitivism? weird looking site indeed) you will benefit enormously. Professor Heinberg is a respected contributor to the world discussion.

Read the book and then we'll discuss it.

In the meantime here are some interresting links:
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.odac-info.org/
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/content/peak_oil
http://www.communitysolution.org/

[sweetpea]

sweatpea~

I assure you that if you read his book, Peak Oil, and not swipe random information from the internet (that first one "Primitivism? weird looking site indeed) you will benefit enormously. Professor Heinberg is a respected contributor to the world discussion.
--I assure you I am not going to read his book. If I give you another author that contradicts this population control freak adn espouse him/her as the most balanced are you going to read it?
--Tha site was a verbatim transcript from a speech your balanced author gave. It did look wierd because of the content of his speech.
Did you bother to read the garbage he was spewing in the interview he gave to a paper in Ontario, CA? More wierd looking stuff due to the content of this 'balanced' author.

Read the book and then we'll discuss it.
--Not gonna happne. You keep considering this dude balanced and then posting that this thread is for 'thinking people to debate'. This guy isn't balanced, isn't respected outside of some fringes and wants to systematically control human population.

In the meantime here are some interresting links:
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.odac-info.org/
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/content/peak_oil
http://www.communitysolution.org/_______________________

Went to two of them already. The globalpublicmedia has some nice info on your 'balanced' author as well.

[Jane of Arc]

sweatpea~

You can't discuss A BOOK YOU HAVEN'T READ. You can't have an opinion ... a fair, "balanced" or valid opinion on A BOOK YOU HAVEN'T READ! You don't know if he's balanced or unbalanced without READING it for yourself. Assuming it's not a valid book on the basis of random readings from the internet is not only not thinking ... it's not scholarly.

In short, until you read the book and can discuss it properly point by point ... you do not know what you're talking about.

[sweetpea]

sweatpea~

You can't discuss A BOOK YOU HAVEN'T READ. You can't have an opinion ... a fair, "balanced" or valid opinion on A BOOK YOU HAVEN'T READ! You don't know if he's balanced or unbalanced without READING it for yourself. Assuming it's not a valid book on the basis of random readings from the internet is not only not thinking ... it's not scholarly.

In short, until you read the book and can discuss it properly point by point ... you do not know what you're talking about.
-----

I'm not discussing the book. I'm discussing the asinine beliefs of the author. I read three interviews he gave and I can have an opinion and discuss it with regard to his beliefs. Your 'balanced' author gives plenty of material to discuss his motives, his lack of balance, and his verbatim quotes.

Take it easy on the bold.

[Jane of Arc]

Do you know anything about peak oil? If so, what?

[kyindy]

Ok, getting in this a little late.

There are a couple camps in peak oil debates. First is the drill everywhere and find new reserves then we won't need to worry about the world's economy imploding us back to the 1500's.(i.e. Bush and Co, and any other oil company) Second is the lets use the remaining usable/cheap oil that will be around for the next 20 to 50 years and create a new system that doesn't run off oil. (i.e. smart people) Third is the lets never use oil again, live in a comune, and braid each others hair(my hippie aunt). There are probable others that I left out.

Both have good points and bad points, but the reality is somewhere further down the line usable cheap oil(not natural gas) is going away.

Here is my 2 cents, lets not think there is something out there to replace oil because there isn't. Let's see where oil is most missued, Cars? Heating? Lubrication? Airplanes? Where are we getting our lowest return on refining oil and fix that.

[haus]

The Apollo Alliance has been working on this problem formally for a couple of years. Their 10-point plan for energy independence is at http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/ten_point_plan.cfm

It's a pretty quick, clear read and supported by Senators, House Members, Unions, and the Sierra Club.

[sweetpea]

Ok, getting in this a little late.

There are a couple camps in peak oil debates. First is the drill everywhere and find new reserves then we won't need to worry about the world's economy imploding us back to the 1500's.(i.e. Bush and Co, and any other oil company) Second is the lets use the remaining usable/cheap oil that will be around for the next 20 to 50 years and create a new system that doesn't run off oil. (i.e. smart people) Third is the lets never use oil again, live in a comune, and braid each others hair(my hippie aunt). There are probable others that I left out.

Both have good points and bad points, but the reality is somewhere further down the line usable cheap oil(not natural gas) is going away.

Here is my 2 cents, lets not think there is something out there to replace oil because there isn't. Let's see where oil is most missued, Cars? Heating? Lubrication? Airplanes? Where are we getting our lowest return on refining oil and fix that.

I agree with your three camps analysis. I would also submit that the ever hated GWB has addressed short term (new technologies to get what is there) and long term (hydrogen powered fuel cells). clinton, Bush1, Carter, Reagan, (nothing.) hardly even an energy policy to speak of. Where were the progressives in 1992 - 2000? Were they complaining about the President then?

[sweetpea]

Do you know anything about peak oil? If so, what?

--
Only a little. However, I do know alarmists and population control freaks when I see them (you 'balanced' author). A lot of your premise is based on this nut case adn I thought you should know what he believes.

[Jane of Arc]

--
Only a little. However, I do know alarmists and population control freaks when I see them (you 'balanced' author). A lot of your premise is based on this nut case adn I thought you should know what he believes.

Sweetpea~

Allow me to help you, because I am very well read on the topic of peak oil. And you are not. And you should educate yourself - all people of the world should educate themselves - as to what's coming. So please take this in the manner it is intended, because I am not into left vs. right pissing contests. In reading your posts, I know you don't know what you talking about. You've hit some websites and gotten just a little bit of info for a political debate. Bush is good. Progressives are bad. Or whatever. This problem is so enormous and real, all educated people on all sides are getting together for solutions. It doesn't matter what president had what policy ... it matters what we do right now.

These are books I reccomend for an over-all picture of the crisis:

(1) Peak Oil:Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage by Kenneth Deffeyes. He's a professor at Princeton University I believe and a researcher for Shell Oil.

(2) The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell. He's a professor at Oxford Univerity, England and has done research for BP, Texaco & Amoco.

(3) Twilight in the Desert by Matthew Simmons. He's the CEO of Energy Investment Bank, Simmons & Co. with clients like Haliburton & World Bank.

(4) The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg. He's a professor at The New College of California and teaches courses at the State University of New York.

And oh by the way ... this "asinine, unbalanced, population control freak" is such a weirdo he was asked to speak by Prince Charles at "The Reception with Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall", at the California Leaders Round Table Dialogue on Peak Oil, Climate Change and Business Action; November 7, 2005 in San Francisco.

I want you to read his paper for Prince Charles and tell me again he's "asinine" ... please ...

http://www.alternet.org/story/28212/

The internet is a great tool if used properly. Reading books and knowing what your talking about is the most effective approach. "Only a little" knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[sweetpea]

Sweetpea~

Allow me to help you, because I am very well read on the topic of peak oil. And you are not. And you should educate yourself - all people of the world should educate themselves - as to what's coming. So please take this in the manner it is intended, because I am not into left vs. right pissing contests. In reading your posts, I know you don't know what you talking about. You've hit some websites and gotten just a little bit of info for a political debate. Bush is good. Progressives are bad. Or whatever. This problem is so enormous and real, all educated people on all sides are getting together for solutions. It doesn't matter what president had what policy ... it matters what we do right now.

These are books I reccomend for an over-all picture of the crisis:

(1) Peak Oil:Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage by Kenneth Deffeyes. He's a professor at Princeton University I believe and a researcher for Shell Oil.

(2) The Coming Oil Crisis by Colin Campbell. He's a professor at Oxford Univerity, England and has done research for BP, Texaco & Amoco.

(3) Twilight in the Desert by Matthew Simmons. He's the CEO of Energy Investment Bank, Simmons & Co. with clients like Haliburton & World Bank.

(4) The Party's Over by Richard Heinberg. He's a professor at The New College of California and teaches courses at the State University of New York.

And oh by the way ... this "asinine, unbalanced, population control freak" is such a weirdo he was asked to speak by Prince Charles at "The Reception with Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall", at the California Leaders Round Table Dialogue on Peak Oil, Climate Change and Business Action; November 7, 2005 in San Francisco.

I want you to read his paper for Prince Charles and tell me again he's "asinine" ... please ...

http://www.alternet.org/story/28212/

The internet is a great tool if used properly. Reading books and knowing what your talking about is the most effective approach. "Only a little" knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Did you read what he said in those interviews? I don't care if you teach at a college or speak for Prince Charles if you believe in systematically reducing the population then you are dangerous and ahve an agenda that ends up in deciding on who lives, dies adn/or reproduces. THis clown was the centerpiece of your original alarmists statements/premise.

Colin Campbell, the old Irishman. been predicting economic destruction from skyrocketing oil prices next year since about 1985. If he lives long enough and keeps predicting....maybe he'll be right. colin, like Heinberg does not take into account new technologies to find more reserves or to extract from reserves once thought untappable. These two doomsdayers also fail to consider other forms of fossil fuels. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, being so well read and all. In case you don't I'm talking about tar-sand and shale.

I'll go into your other authors later.

A few more notes while you are thinking of how to tell me how unread I am and that the only time I should debate your alarmist exaggerated statements is if I read your list of books.....In 1956, the grandfather of your peak oil friends, predicted that in 1970 the world would be at the peak oil point and there would be economic turmoil blah blah blah. Hubbert made the same mistakes al of these other doomsdayers make. He assumed static technology, exploration and pardigms.
In 1949 Hubbert also predicted that the fossil fuel era would be of very short duration. Were either of these predictions right, oh so well read one?

Be careful with authors such as Campbell who fill you full of graphs with only casually correlated data instead of true statistical analysis. I happen to know a little about the subject and Campell is full of casually correlated data and charts that prove nothing except to those that want to believe.

Now, there will be a time when production reaches the halfway point of what is there to extract. The problem with the Hubbert modeling crowd is that they continue to assume that what is there to extract is a static number. It isn't. The other problem is that this theory fits nicely with people such as Heinburg who are more interested in population control and agrarian collectivism than they are in solving any energy problems. The biggest problem is that folks like yourself sop it up like a sponge because of politics or becasue of pessimism.

[Jane of Arc]

Sweetpea~

If I believed you knew anything at all about peak oil ... I would listen to you. I would be all ears. I really would. I love to learn. But your opinions based on scant readings mean little to me. I prefer facts and research from idiots at Oxford and fools from Princeton and jerks on the Bush energy program and all kinds of asinine people so incredibly dumb they are asked to speak to Prince Charles on the subject of peak oil.

Your attempt to argue that peak oil is pessimistic is out-dated. All the governments of the industrialized world know we are headed for a crisis. The scramble to obtain oil is on!

You really have a chance to learn something in this progressive room sweetpea. You can actually learn things from me and others. It's not just one big pissing contest of right vs. left.

You are too bent on "winning" a debate, rather than learning and contributing to a discussion. And I find that boring.

I'm truly sorry if I come across arrogant. That's not what I desire. I gave you the list of books because I am trying to get you to read and learn. Even if you disagree with an author based on a google search ... still read them, so you have the facts.

[kyindy]

I agree with your three camps analysis. I would also submit that the ever hated GWB has addressed short term (new technologies to get what is there) and long term (hydrogen powered fuel cells). clinton, Bush1, Carter, Reagan, (nothing.) hardly even an energy policy to speak of. Where were the progressives in 1992 - 2000? Were they complaining about the President then?

SweetPea,

I am not defending any of the former Presidents, My first vote was for Perot in 1996 (Don't shoot me, he could at least balance his check book) more concerned with the economy and didn't understand how Oil factored into everything.

Knowing what I know now about energy in general, including peak oil, and unit per production; my opinion is that pouring money into Hydrogen right now is a bad choice. The amount of energy to convert hydro into 1 usable unit is still too high. Safe reliable transportation means hydro must be frozen or really cold. What is cooling the hydro, oil/gas/coal. Building the containment for the hydro takes energy, solid steel/alumin to ensure hydro stays cold and leakage is prevented. Rolling this into the automotive world would cost, ah don't have number that big.

As far a I am concerned we have plenty of available alternitives to hydro. Wind, Solar, and water. In and of themselves not much but together and in combos can do a lot of damage.

Better option would be to supplement current oil usage anyway possible. Two easy and effective ways to reduce this would be eliminate diesel and unleaded fuel. How you say KyIndy, that seems to hard. The common knock down of Bio and Veggie is it takes fuel to sow and harvest the beans and what not, but don't tractors run on Diesel? That is crazy talk KyIndy! :P As far as the unleaded this will be a bit harder but you can replace with LP/Methonal/Moonshine(i am from KY :). With LP we will be beholded to Chavez and Bush doesn't like that idea but the middle east and the Saudis will lose some leverage. With Methonal at least we our buying and growing locally farms can replace tobacco with Sugar Beets, Hemp, you name it.

Before I stated the Wind, Solar, and Water we have electric cars available. Instead of pluging those into the grid, use them for recharging stations. Reducing our depandance on Oil and Gas is not rocket science but it is not that profitable, and that is the ball game.

[Jane of Arc]

ATTENTION Progressives Online:


Thank you for taking the time to read this. I strongly suggest that everyone visiting this site go to the following link and take 34 min. of your life to listen to an interview with Robert L. Hirsch, who was commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Energy to head a team to do an analysis of 'peak oil' for the Bush Administation. He is a senior analyst at SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation. For a deeper understanding of the commission's report on the 'peak oil' crisis everyone can read The Hirsch Report:
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management.

Hirsch is neither a "pessimist" nor an "optimist", but, like myself, a conservative on this issue. Conservation of oil is the only prudent approach to the growing world crisis.

Liberals, be forewarned, you are going to hear things you don't want to hear ... like global warming becomes irrelevant in the coming years, social security is a problem. etc. The man is not a liberal, but a scientist who did a study that is vital to listen to and consider.


Scroll down to the bottom of the linked page below and just hit "Listen Now".

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615



Kyindy ~ thank you for your thoughtful additions to the discussion of this thread. It's appreciated!

[haus]

The reason I haven't been active in this thread is that the conclusions seem so obvious that I don't really know what I can add. :)

Petroleum is a finite resource. At some date "x", production rates will start to decrease. This decrease will be more or less linear (like 2%/year, or 4%/year) and prices will increase.

Pick a random commodity and prices for that commodity will increase at around the same rate. For example: tomatoes. Petroleum is used to seed 'em, fertilize 'em, pick 'em, package 'em, transport 'em, and keep 'em cold.

The big debate seems to be when "x" is, and what the rate of decline will be. Hirsch lists several opinions on that in Table 1 of http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf

In the interview, Hirsch seated the problem in an Operational Risk Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management) harness. This struck me as extremely clever. ORM is a technique used to deal with dynamic situations where you don't know everything that's going on. Brokerage houses use it to stay in business. In the Navy nowadays, it seems like you have to have an ORM plan (http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/orm/default.htm) to get out of bed in the morning.

I use it to keep from crashing into other ships. Even if you don't know exactly what the market is going to do, or if you don't know exactly what another ship is going to do, ORM methodology lets you make reasonable, safe, plans. At each step in a process, you have a measurement of your risk exposure.

I guess the last thing that occurs to me to say on the subject is that there is bipartisan legislation (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr109-507) in the House and a "Peak Oil Caucus" of legislators concerned about this issue. I did a quick search for on-line campaigns to encourage representatives to join the caucus and didn't find anything. Perhaps an opportunity for action?

[Jane of Arc]

haus~

Thank you! Are you kidding ... nothing to add? I and others depend on those smarts of yours! As far as "the conclusions being so obvious", as Hirsch said most people are completely clueless. They may be obvious to someone like you haus ~ but, not to the average bear.

I really appreciate your input on ORM. I totally missed that. Being in the arts all my life ... it's something I haven't paid much attention to. But, you can bet your sweet bippy I will research it and re-examine with a new perspective.

And yes, also thank you for bringing up the legislation. I've been aware of that for a while. I've been following Rep. Roscoe Bartlett for a while.

http://www.bartlett.house.gov/

Thanks again!

[gratelady1]

What, I like this thread, it provides a unique new field for fodder- Ok, dont get mad, I wont tear into the facts, but I read the report to congress, and then researched debunking research, and even supporting research, in "Oil & Gas Journal", and then searched related info about production and estimating and such- pretty good stuff, but I was not scared into dumping my Ford F-250, and pulling out my burro. I believe Lynch did a good job of debunking the methodology used to come to the reports conclusions.

About ten years ago, I read an article, on how Oil wells replensih themselves, and an alternate view for "how "Fossil fuels" are created"- that was pretty interesting and the debate continues- When will we run out of gas? What should we do about it and when should we start "Mitigating actions".

Funny how most articles I found today- were related to how to "Control the flow of oil"- ei. back in the late 70s, early 80s, the price of oil plumetted, due to large reserves and now they are up, because of high demand. Makes sense, when you take it to the capitalist, they love that oil and oil compnaies are actively traded today and speculators are the main ones releasing information for us to devour for them to justify, the high prices ie. Iraq at war, Katrina, Bush lost 3million barrels of oil- you name it, you see it everyday. The price goes up and down, with no end in sight. ANd yet the highways are full and the fuel trucks keep coming and topping off the filling stations- go figure?

Here is my take- Take oil out of the hands of profiteers and private corporations, Elect an energy czar, and fix the price of a gallon of gas. The fair thing to do is stop the developement and mass production of oil, accept- that in fact there is a finite amount of fossil fuel, and let the tanks run dry.

What would be the outcome? There will still be gas, there will still be profiteers, there will still be industry, there will still be production- why? Capitalism finds a way! Only force the issue now!

I remember one night, when I was on call at St. Lukes Hosp. In Houston in the OB-Gyn dept., Delivery after delivery, Finally at complete exhaustion, and at about 1 in the morn, I asked the nurse- who kept running me from one room to the other- "What she would do if I were not there?",
She told me "she would call someone else"- I said "damn you! Call someone else!"
I use this diatribe to relate, that when forced to the ends of an issue- we are forced to find solutions. Folks would be forced to walk from place to place, ride a bike, pull out a burro!

The problem is Demand- When you watch TV at night- every other commercial is how "you can set yourself free and race about the planet in your 400 Horsepower vehicle, and all that"- The reality is about 80% of the fuel being used now, is preventable, but no politician- especially a Repub or Dem, is about to promote conservation, instead they finance and promote studies like these- mainly for the purpose of capitalizing on our fears and ignorance.

My advice- chill, the capitalist will find a way to bring you more gas, how else can they get their slaves to work everyday?

The reality is- What the hell can we do about it? When we run out-we run out, I would be more afraid of running out of Forest and raw land or clean breathable air, before we burn/waste a trillion bbls of oil- which will contaminate it.

[MAGI]

Forgive me What?, but I am ASTOUNDED to learn GWBUSHCo's Dept. of Energy asked for an assessment from a non-biased scientific source and MAY, actually, pay some attention to the study and DO something positive about it!

I'll go back to where I expressed my thoughts on this very subject quite awhile ago. I think I'll find it on "Iraq:I Rack My Brain for a Solution" when I do. (Tomorrow.......)

I believe we both KNOW this World IS CONTROLLED by a very few POWERFULL "Petro", for want of a better word......I'll say............."Cabal", who have done their utmost to forestall ALL conservative measures (other than ATOMIC......in which they are most likely heavily invested as well)!

I wanted to say before on this thread (but hesitated because of the flak that'll be fired...........), President Clinton was pushing for conservative energy measures as I recall. Well..........I DID IT!
Without a House, probably the Senate as well, because we know how many of our lawmakers protect those OIL moguls and corporations, there was little Clinton could do. But one thing for sure was................ Clinton wanted a more energy efficient vehicle and spoke of the need for conservative measures pertinent to oil consumption. Yes, I know, the bimbo issue & ALL THAT STUFF!

It was clear to me when Cheney met with ALL those Energy representatives and EVERYTHING was and IS so SECRET about WHO was present and WHAT was said....... and NO conservative measures were hence-forth spoken of, NOR incorporated........(except for a suggested push backward toward ATOMIC enery...........our MAJOR disaster threat!), that "they" were out to keep the WORLD ................OIL DEPENDENT!

Now that ALL isn't going according to "their" previous plan (presumptuous of me, I know)...........maybe, just maybe, we'll get to the business of doing what should have been done YEARS ago............ Be as independent as possible from NEEDING OIL, as well as other resources, from any other country in the world.

This does NOT mean drilling for more OIL, oil use which is destroying our environment, or mining intensely once again for uranium...we've done ENOUGH damage doing THAT already!

For starters, it should mean using technology we presently have, commencing NOW, ONE quick way.......... SOLAR panels, on every home in Arizona!
Seems I heard extra (unused) energy could be fed back &/or stored! Anyone have info on this?
I know someone is going to say "that's a drop in a bucket"....... but, it's less OIL needed from the Middle East (esp.); we will be less OIL dependent, and CAN be ACCOMPLISED NOW.................

The most expensive oil per gallon I ever purchased (in 1994) was.........approximately 50 miles north of Valdez, Alaska. That was 12 years ago and the one place I thought where it would be economical, since it was OUR OIL! I know.....refinery or SOMETHING, for sure.

Anyway What?, I AGREE, peak oil, now or later, to preserve OUR WORLD, peacefully, economically and environmentally, we MUST GET WORKING ON THIS: LIKE YESTERDAY.

Shoooosh..........and I was going to bed early............ :)

[Jane of Arc]

... I would be more afraid of running out of Forest and raw land or clean breathable air, before we burn/waste a trillion bbls of oil- which will contaminate it.

This is very wise! Thanks gratelady1. And thank you for your true consideration of the issue. You brought up some very good points. I appreciate you taking the time.

[Jane of Arc]

About ten years ago, I read an article, on how Oil wells replensih themselves, and an alternate view for "how "Fossil fuels" are created"-



Gratelady1~

Thanks again. Just wanted to know if you have a source for this? Do you remember where you read this?

[Jane of Arc]

Forgive me What?, but I am ASTOUNDED to learn GWBUSHCo's Dept. of Energy asked for an assessment from a non-biased scientific source and MAY, actually, pay some attention to the study and DO something positive about it!

The US Dept. of Energy asked experts for a study. Bush has not followed the advice of the report. The proverbial sh*t won't hit the fan on his watch. So, what the heck! :confused:


I believe we both KNOW this World IS CONTROLLED by a very few POWERFULL "Petro", for want of a better word......I'll say............."Cabal", who have done their utmost to forestall ALL conservative measures (other than ATOMIC......in which they are most likely heavily invested as well)!

This is one of the issues I want to explore and have everyone speculate on. The world appears to be heading for a brick wall. When a well-respected, conservative expert like Hirsch says he's literally "frightened" it raises many questions about WHY precautions are not being taken.


It was clear to me when Cheney met with ALL those Energy representatives and EVERYTHING was and IS so SECRET about WHO was present and WHAT was said....... and NO conservative measures were hence-forth spoken of, NOR incorporated........(except for a suggested push backward toward ATOMIC enery...........our MAJOR disaster threat!), that "they" were out to keep the WORLD ................OIL DEPENDENT!

Do we use nuclear power? It's nasty stuff and dependent on oil. But, if we could conserve the remaining oil ... is nuclear energy during a transition period an option? But, the question is transition to what? There is nothing yet that can replace oil consumption.

For starters, it should mean using technology we presently have, commencing NOW, ONE quick way.......... SOLAR panels, on every home in Arizona!
Seems I heard extra (unused) energy could be fed back &/or stored! Anyone have info on this?
I know someone is going to say "that's a drop in a bucket"....... but, it's less OIL needed from the Middle East (esp.); we will be less OIL dependent, and CAN be ACCOMPLISED NOW.................

So far, there is no one energy souce to replace oil. The combined alternatives ... solar, hydro, wind, coal, etc. can't replace oil. But, all experts say oil conservation and reliance on available alternatives will buy us time.


Anyway What?, I AGREE, peak oil, now or later, to preserve OUR WORLD, peacefully, economically and environmentally, we MUST GET WORKING ON THIS: LIKE YESTERDAY.

Shoooosh..........and I was going to bed early............ :)[/QUOTE]

Cool. I don't think there's a bigger issue out there. It's so big, it's easy to walk away from ... but I want to understand more. Thanks for your input MAGI!!! Now don't sleep and solve this problem already, will you? :)

[gratelady1]

Gratelady1~

Thanks again. Just wanted to know if you have a source for this? Do you remember where you read this?

I am here in the perverbial "Oil Captial of the World" and I know it was published here, locally, as Texas A&M is a proud Petro-chemical research leader. It is a simple thing to research, and I am sorry I am not back there yet, to do the research before Posting it, but like I said, it is easy to look up.

Take this into consideration, why you wait for my submission- Like I have posted elsewhere on other threads- My home is but a few hundred feet/yards from a working oil pump- it is old- and still the oil trucks come- up to ten times a day, to fill thier tanks, And here in Central Texas, there are thousands of such "pumpng" oil wells, What does that tell you? If you take into consideration the cost of Diesel, and how much to pay for the driver and the time to go to each pump every day- and how many times a day?, Do you think they are going there to check if there is enough oil pumped to collect? I suspect they are collecting lots of oil, and producing gas and filling the filling gas stations, and making billions in the process. Add to this the fact that the companies that own the oil pumps, have been revamping them, and redrilling them- What can we conclude from that? That they are going to sink money into a dry well? I think not- not with todays' technology.

Note that the study/report was specific to "Peak" meaning when the point where supply cannot keep up with demand, and it's main effect on price", It would have been better if a report was conducted on "When we will run out, and predicting the effects, and then putting the fear of intangibility, rather than cost"

Let me explain, and please forgive me for the long winded post- but like you said "it is important to debate", and even more important to rationalize the implications.

The most important premise of any report and study about fuel is availabilty and effects- such as proposed amount available now- versus lets say ten years from now.

Accepting this premise, if scientist say "there is a finite total amount on this planet, and that supply is a function of demand", then the question can be reversed- How can you demand something we do not have? How can anyone logically surmise that they can charge more for a gallon of gas because "there aint much/any left?

If this is to be followed- then the country with the most money, when the last cup of gas is made available, will get to spend all their remaining capitol on the right to say "they were the last one to run an internal combustion engine"- very shallow thinking you might conclude.

The question I have for you is- are you afraid enough, by what you have learned, to change your personal behavior (in relation to fuel consumption) to improve our future prospects, whatever they may be?

The report you cited specifically states "we will run out- maybe here shortly", Contrary reports- say "we dont know when we will run out", Our common sense says "we know for a fact we dont have unlimited time and resources".

Want a simple solution? Be the amongst the few and first to produce a viable alternative, and cash in all the opportunity availed by the limits of fossil fuels.
If we simply demand that our government make available billions of dollars (in unquestioned grants) for research to viable- complete alternatives, then we may be able to make a dent in the uniquely American institutionalized behavior of dependency on internal combustable engines.

But even the simplist rational thinking person can see the problem with this report and where it leads a layperson's attention.

[gratelady1]

What, I would like to know from you;

Is it your intent just to debate the report, and thus scare everyone into thinking we will not have any gas?

Or is it your intent to promote dialogue to spur ways of finding soultions to the proposed problem?

If you want to be comforted, check out this link-

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/CompressedAir/index.html

If you really want solutions, promote the pasting of simular links along with your debate.

[Jane of Arc]

gratelady1~

I have been reading books on the subject of peak oil from every perspective for about 5 years. I have hesitated to get into the subject in the POL forum because it is immense. I've learned it's so immense that experts and scientists on all political sides agree, when it comes right down to the bottom line. Peak oil is coming. The world is not prepared.

Do you have the ability on your computer to listen to the link I provided? I know you read, but did you listen to this?

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615

My intention is to promote dialog and if a solution could come out of the POL forum ... I suppose stranger things have happened!? Why not! Please everyone post links! And thanks for the link you provided gratelady1.

As far as the (CAT) Compressed Air Technology ... it is in the list as preventative measure to help prolong the crisis until a new energy arrives/ is developed. In order to manufacture the cars that run on CAT, you need oil and fossil fuels.

[MAGI]

Sorry What?, I had to remove icons & [] to make this work..........

What:
"The US Dept. of Energy asked experts for a study. Bush has not followed the advice of the report. The proverbial sh*t won't hit the fan on his watch. So, what the heck! "

Magi:
What?, the statement was pure sarcasm. Not directed at you (you do know that, after reading what I write........no phony here, no games........). Just thinking of The Energy Dept. (consisting of bushco foxes in the henhouse) put in place by Bushco.....studying OIL conservation ...........is THE JOKE of THE CENTURY as you and MOST of us on this forum knows, SO completely contradictory to his statements and most actions, it chokes me! It was meant for newcomers and anyone seriously trying to make this a better world. I know.......... You know.........
--------------------------
What?:
"This is one of the issues I want to explore and have everyone speculate on. The world appears to be heading for a brick wall. When a well-respected, conservative expert like Hirsch says he's literally "frightened" it raises many questions about WHY precautions are not being taken."

Magi:
FOR SURE!
--------------------------
What?:
"Do we use nuclear power? It's nasty stuff and dependent on oil. But, if we could conserve the remaining oil ... is nuclear energy during a transition period an option? But, the question is transition to what? There is nothing yet that can replace oil consumption."

Magi:
Nuclear power?
NO! NEVER AGAIN! Lets get moving on technology we presently have and STOP selling OUR OIL to other countries meanwhile! That'll give us so VERY much time and most likely cause great technological advances!
(ut ohhhhhhhhhh........I foresee trouble.........) :eek:
-------------------------------------------------
What?:
"So far, there is no one energy souce to replace oil. The combined alternatives ... solar, hydro, wind, coal, etc. can't replace oil. But, all experts say oil conservation and reliance on available alternatives will buy us time."


For Sure!
---------------------------------------------
What?:
"Cool. I don't think there's a bigger issue out there. It's so big, it's easy to walk away from ... but I want to understand more. Thanks for your input MAGI!!! Now don't sleep and solve this problem already, will you? "

Magi:
It's THE ISSUE..........FOR SURE! Concerns every PERSON, PLACE and THING!

I'm TRYING, even in sleep....................

[Jane of Arc]

MAGI~

Thank you very much for your involvement and interest in this subject. It doesn't seem like a 'political subject', but it's the motherlode of all topics. (I actually have 2 more I will bring up in a month or so.) :p Once people start understanding peak oil, they understand the Neocons, the war, the world design, the terrorists, 9-11, the lies and deceit ... it all comes together.

One point to correct. You said, "Lets get moving on technology we presently have and STOP selling OUR OIL to other countries meanwhile! That'll give us so VERY much time and most likely cause great technological advances!"
The US reached peak oil in 1970. We import the majority of the oil we use and our society is dependent on imported oil. If the world said no more oil to the US ... the United States as we know it would collapse. Immediately collapse. Hence, seeing that we are the most oil dependent country, we have superior weapons to counter the threat to our society.

We use to have other things the world needed ... cars, technology, culture, food ... now they can get those things from other places. Our superior military strength keeps the world giving us what we want and need. It's also the basis of our trade agreements.

Thanks again MAGI!!! Keep the ideas coming!

[MAGI]

What?,
I believe most of our Alaska OIL goes to other countries. Am I wrong? The "boys" just HAVE to keep the barrel price up there to make them MORE wealthy and keep CONTROLL of the WORLD!

AND.......... they just HAVE to get their dirty little hands on ALL that untapped Alaskan OIL! Hummmmmmmmm........maybe there's where the pretence for "studying" "peak oil" comes about.............

They sure CLAIM NOT to believe the possibility of Global Warming. Most likely "the boys" DON'T believe PEAK OIL theories either....when it comes to their.... ALMIGHTY...the GREENBACK!

Their position seems to be "Live Today for Tomorrow we Die". and......... when we die SO should ALL civilization! and, "Let's make the "fools" believe we really care about peak oil!" Can't you just SEE those sneers?

[sweetpea]

Sweetpea~

If I believed you knew anything at all about peak oil ... I would listen to you. I would be all ears. I really would. I love to learn. But your opinions based on scant readings mean little to me. I prefer facts and research from idiots at Oxford and fools from Princeton and jerks on the Bush energy program and all kinds of asinine people so incredibly dumb they are asked to speak to Prince Charles on the subject of peak oil.
---I guess you are the self-proclaimed resident expert. I don't believe you love to learn. I believe you love to read books that agree with your viewpoint and if anone contadicts that you simply dismiss them. IF you want to learn take a look at how your authors use casually related data to sell their viewpoints. It is statistically unsound. I could say that if I beleived you wanted to learn anything about research and stattistics I would listen to you....but I want.

Your attempt to argue that peak oil is pessimistic is out-dated. All the governments of the industrialized world know we are headed for a crisis. The scramble to obtain oil is on!
---Actually, the peak oil theory is outdated. It's been a moving prediction since the 1950's. It's been wrong in every decade since and is stil wrong today.

You really have a chance to learn something in this progressive room sweetpea. You can actually learn things from me and others. It's not just one big pissing contest of right vs. left.
--That cuts both ways.

You are too bent on "winning" a debate, rather than learning and contributing to a discussion. And I find that boring.
---And you are bent on dismissing other opinions that don't conform to yours. you presented a theory and I challenged it.....your next point was that I don't know what I'mtalking about. Now, who is the one not wanting to learn?

I'm truly sorry if I come across arrogant. That's not what I desire. I gave you the list of books because I am trying to get you to read and learn. Even if you disagree with an author based on a google search ... still read them, so you have the facts.
---Tell you what. I'll read more the entire book or list of books if you agree to do the same and read a book or books that I list that contradicts this theory. Ever heard of Michael Lynch?

[sweetpea]

SweetPea,

I am not defending any of the former Presidents, My first vote was for Perot in 1996 (Don't shoot me, he could at least balance his check book) more concerned with the economy and didn't understand how Oil factored into everything.

Knowing what I know now about energy in general, including peak oil, and unit per production; my opinion is that pouring money into Hydrogen right now is a bad choice. The amount of energy to convert hydro into 1 usable unit is still too high. Safe reliable transportation means hydro must be frozen or really cold. What is cooling the hydro, oil/gas/coal. Building the containment for the hydro takes energy, solid steel/alumin to ensure hydro stays cold and leakage is prevented. Rolling this into the automotive world would cost, ah don't have number that big.
--I agree it is a bad choice, right now. HJowever, this assumes technology is static. It isn't. At one point in time we had oil with no way to econimicaly refine it and make it usable for transportation. Same could be said for Hydrogen. I bring it up to point out that at least GWB has an energy policy and addresses teh long-term problem with R&D $$$. What cannot seem to respond to this point. Probably contradicts his current viewpoints.

As far a I am concerned we have plenty of available alternitives to hydro. Wind, Solar, and water. In and of themselves not much but together and in combos can do a lot of damage.
--Agreed. However, they have the same problems as Hydrogen......they are not in a form that can be used on a mass scale. Wind is used in some areas to provide electricity already with varying degrees of sucess. Just don't put the windmills within view of Ted Kennedy's beach house....or he'll have them removed.

Better option would be to supplement current oil usage anyway possible. Two easy and effective ways to reduce this would be eliminate diesel and unleaded fuel. How you say KyIndy, that seems to hard. The common knock down of Bio and Veggie is it takes fuel to sow and harvest the beans and what not, but don't tractors run on Diesel? That is crazy talk KyIndy! :P As far as the unleaded this will be a bit harder but you can replace with LP/Methonal/Moonshine(i am from KY . With LP we will be beholded to Chavez and Bush doesn't like that idea but the middle east and the Saudis will lose some leverage. With Methonal at least we our buying and growing locally farms can replace tobacco with Sugar Beets, Hemp, you name it.
---I don't think you understand how much unleaded fuel is used. I also think you are allowing for your idea even though it has the same problem as to why you disagree with hydrogen. There is not a way to get ti in usable forms to the masses right now. It sounds on the surface that you are in favor of lifestyle changes and the rehashed peak oil theory provides that opportunity.

Before I stated the Wind, Solar, and Water we have electric cars available. Instead of pluging those into the grid, use them for recharging stations. Reducing our depandance on Oil and Gas is not rocket science but it is not that profitable, and that is the ball game.
---Plug the hybrid cars into the recharging staions? I don't get it.

[sweetpea]

The US reached peak oil in 1970.
Really? I thought Peak Oil was to arrive as soon as 2010. Which is it? Please tell all the folks on this thread who are not as well read as you.

We import the majority of the oil we use and our society is dependent on imported oil. If the world said no more oil to the US ... the United States as we know it would collapse. Immediately collapse. Hence, seeing that we are the most oil dependent country, we have superior weapons to counter the threat to our society.

We use to have other things the world needed ... cars, technology, culture, food ... now they can get those things from other places. Our superior military strength keeps the world giving us what we want and need. It's also the basis of our trade agreements.

[Jane of Arc]

Sweatpea~

I was just in the process of writing a considerate, well thought out response to your post. I was assuming that you had an actual interest in the topic of 'peak oil'. Then I read your latest post below. Please resist a personal attack pissing contest. This issue is too important.

What? Quote:
The US reached peak oil in 1970.


Really? I thought Peak Oil was to arrive as soon as 2010. Which is it? Please tell all the folks on this thread who are not as well read as you.
The United States reached 'peak oil' in 1970.

Oil field after oil field dried up in America. George W. Bush can testify to the scarcity of US oil with his failed oil company. We started to import oil and now import the majority of our oil. We are dependent on other countries for oil.

The WORLD will reach 'peak oil' as soon as 2010.

Some say it's already happened. Some say 2010. Some say 2035. Some say 2050. But peak oil is coming. The world is not prepared.


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

I am very familiar with Michael Lynch and I pray to God he is right. There is hardly anyone left who agrees with him and his attempts to take down Campbell failed through faulty analysis. The problem is that the vast majority of scientists, geologists, researchers, oil company specialists disagree with the now diminishing handfull of economists in the 'peak oil' debate. The debate is out-dated. The US government knows peak oil is coming and is starting to work on the issue. Click listen at the bottom of the page to hear:http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615 Even if Lynch is correct and there are massive areas of oil left to discover ... it is too expensive to explore, discover and retrieve and the point is moot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[kyindy]

--I agree it is a bad choice, right now. HJowever, this assumes technology is static. It isn't. At one point in time we had oil with no way to econimicaly refine it and make it usable for transportation. Same could be said for Hydrogen. I bring it up to point out that at least GWB has an energy policy and addresses teh long-term problem with R&D $$$. What cannot seem to respond to this point. Probably contradicts his current viewpoints.

A better question about the GWB R&D research $$$ would be who is getting it? The same oil company's who have us over the barrel now.

--Agreed. However, they have the same problems as Hydrogen......they are not in a form that can be used on a mass scale. Wind is used in some areas to provide electricity already with varying degrees of sucess. Just don't put the windmills within view of Ted Kennedy's beach house....or he'll have them removed.

A power grid is a power grid is a power grid. Yes building new facilities will use existing oil, but will guide us away from oil in the mid to long term. In Ky we use water/KY Damn and then we sell the coal we mine so we don't polute our own children, goofy huh. Water has been refined in dealing with rivers pretty well. But with solar and wind land consumption is a valid issue, but I think it will be easy to get over NIMBY in the long run. Well Mass wouldn't be the first place I would put a windmill, but I don't think Ted would like that anyway. :P

---I don't think you understand how much unleaded fuel is used. I also think you are allowing for your idea even though it has the same problem as to why you disagree with hydrogen. There is not a way to get ti in usable forms to the masses right now. It sounds on the surface that you are in favor of lifestyle changes and the rehashed peak oil theory provides that opportunity.

I believe we have the infrustructure now, bio and veggie are transpoted and delivered the same as the fuel we use now. In ND Mid Grade is cut with Methanol and is almost cheaper than regular.

---Plug the hybrid cars into the recharging staions? I don't get it.

Electric cars to go to and from work. The average household has 2 cars now, lets replace one of those with electric. And instead of using existing power grids to power the cars set up solar and wind recharging centers. You stop and replace your batteries, then the center will start charging the ones you leave for the next person.

You brought us lifestyle changes earlier and you have hit the nail on the head. US people do not handle change in anyway shape or form. Until the sky is falling the US will not listen, and will just spin our wheels.

[Jane of Arc]

ATTENTION Progressives Online:


Thank you for taking the time to read this. I strongly suggest that everyone visiting this site go to the following link and take 34 min. of your life to listen to an interview with Robert L. Hirsch, who was commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Energy to head a team to do an analysis of 'peak oil' for the Bush Administation. He is a senior analyst at SAIC, Science Applications International Corporation. For a deeper understanding of the commission's report on the 'peak oil' crisis everyone can read The Hirsch Report:
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation & Risk Management.

Hirsch is neither a "pessimist" nor an "optimist", but, like myself, a conservative on this issue. Conservation of oil is the only prudent approach to the growing world crisis.

Liberals, be forewarned, you are going to hear things you don't want to hear ... like global warming becomes irrelevant in the coming years, social security is a problem. etc. The man is not a liberal, but a scientist who did a study that is vital to listen to and consider.


Scroll down to the bottom of the linked page below and just hit "Listen Now".

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615



Thank you all for your thoughtful additions to the discussion of this thread. It's appreciated!

[sweetpea]

The United States reached 'peak oil' in 1970.

Oil field after oil field dried up in America. George W. Bush can testify to the scarcity of US oil with his failed oil company. We started to import oil and now import the majority of our oil. We are dependent on other countries for oil.
--Fair enough. Apologies for the quick trigger.

The WORLD will reach 'peak oil' as soon as 2010.

Some say it's already happened. Some say 2010. Some say 2035. Some say 2050. But peak oil is coming. The world is not prepared.
---And if we keep predicting it, eventually it wil become true. World Peak Oil has been predicted as an imminent problem since the 1950's. All of those predictions are based upon faulty assumptions of static technology.


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

I am very familiar with Michael Lynch and I pray to God he is right. There is hardly anyone left who agrees with him and his attempts to take down Campbell failed through faulty analysis. The problem is that the vast majority of scientists, geologists, researchers, oil company specialists disagree with the now diminishing handfull of economists in the 'peak oil' debate.
---The problem is this 'vast majortiy' have been making the same predictions for 50 years. Enough with the chicken little. By the way, teh term 'vast majority' is a stretch. And including the likes of Heinberg in this so-called vast majority is laughable. Do you believe in his population control and collectivism notions?
The debate is out-dated.
Agreed. Predicting hte same crap for 50 years is outdated.
The US government knows peak oil is coming and is starting to work on the issue. Click listen at the bottom of the page to hear:http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615 Even if Lynch is correct and there are massive areas of oil left to discover ... it is too expensive to explore, discover and retrieve and the point is moot.
Wrong. We thought the same thing 10, 20 , and 30 years ago. Technology changes and the denomionator in these peak-oil chicken little predictions change.

[sweetpea]

Originally Posted by sweetpea
--I agree it is a bad choice, right now. HJowever, this assumes technology is static. It isn't. At one point in time we had oil with no way to econimicaly refine it and make it usable for transportation. Same could be said for Hydrogen. I bring it up to point out that at least GWB has an energy policy and addresses teh long-term problem with R&D $$$. What cannot seem to respond to this point. Probably contradicts his current viewpoints.

KYINDY - A better question about the GWB R&D research $$$ would be who is getting it? The same oil company's who have us over the barrel now.
--Do you at least acknowledge a policy? Assuming you do then your point is that the R&D money is going to those evil oil companies taht know how to get energy to the masses. Who would you give it to? Are you dismissing the policy solely because of how the funds are dispersed? IF the oil companies made hydrogen available cleaner and cheaper that gasoline would you still complain simply because it is coming from those mean ole' oil barons?

Sweetpea--Agreed. However, they have the same problems as Hydrogen......they are not in a form that can be used on a mass scale. Wind is used in some areas to provide electricity already with varying degrees of sucess. Just don't put the windmills within view of Ted Kennedy's beach house....or he'll have them removed.

KYINDYA power grid is a power grid is a power grid. Yes building new facilities will use existing oil, but will guide us away from oil in the mid to long term. In Ky we use water/KY Damn and then we sell the coal we mine so we don't polute our own children, goofy huh. Water has been refined in dealing with rivers pretty well. But with solar and wind land consumption is a valid issue, but I think it will be easy to get over NIMBY in the long run. Well Mass wouldn't be the first place I would put a windmill, but I don't think Ted would like that anyway. :P
--I think we agree on something here. Long term thinking. Exccept you like power grids and I favor Hydrogen. Which one uses less oli to transition to?

Sweetpea----I don't think you understand how much unleaded fuel is used. I also think you are allowing for your idea even though it has the same problem as to why you disagree with hydrogen. There is not a way to get ti in usable forms to the masses right now. It sounds on the surface that you are in favor of lifestyle changes and the rehashed peak oil theory provides that opportunity.

KYINDY - I believe we have the infrustructure now, bio and veggie are transpoted and delivered the same as the fuel we use now. In ND Mid Grade is cut with Methanol and is almost cheaper than regular.
--To a small degree we have infrastructure. The problem is we do not have teh vehicles. I agre with Methanol, except is is not long term thinking. I think you want to get rid of unleaded jsut for the sake of lifestyle changes. Aint gonna happen.

[Jane of Arc]

http://www.peakoil.net/images/Dec7/The_Three_Musketeers.jpg
On Wednesday, December 7, Peak Oil got its first official congressional forum when the
House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the subject. Strong testimonies
in favor of Peak Oil was given by Aleklett, Hirsch and Bartlett.

Robert Hirsch on peak oil:

"This problem is truly frightening. This problem is like nothing that
I have ever seen in my lifetime, and the more you think about it and the more you look at the
numbers, the more uneasy any observer gets. It's so easy to sound alarmist, and I fear that part
of what I'm saying may sound alarmist, but there simply is no question that the risks here are
beyond anything that any of us have ever dealt with.
And the risks to our economies and our civilization are enormous."

[sweetpea]

http://www.peakoil.net/images/Dec7/The_Three_Musketeers.jpg
On Wednesday, December 7, Peak Oil got its first official congressional forum when the
House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the subject. Strong testimonies
in favor of Peak Oil was given by Aleklett, Hirsch and Bartlett.

Robert Hirsch on peak oil:

"This problem is truly frightening. This problem is like nothing that
I have ever seen in my lifetime, and the more you think about it and the more you look at the
numbers, the more uneasy any observer gets. It's so easy to sound alarmist, and I fear that part
of what I'm saying may sound alarmist, but there simply is no question that the risks here are
beyond anything that any of us have ever dealt with.
And the risks to our economies and our civilization are enormous."


This problem is like nothing that
I have ever seen in my lifetime, and the more you think about it and the more you look at the
numbers, the more uneasy any observer gets.
---Yep. we've heard that before. Every decade since the 50's. He's had almost 60 years to think about and keep making the same prediction.

[Jane of Arc]

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/images/matthewsimmons_01.jpg
Matthew Simmons is the CEO of the world's largest Energy Investment Bank, Simmons & Company
International Its clients include Halliburton; Baker, Botts, LLP; Dynegy; Kerr-McGee; and the
World Bank. Simmons is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the National
Petroleum Council's Natural Gas Task Force. He has been a key advisor to the Bush Administration,
Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations. He has served
previously on the faculty of Harvard Business School.

http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research.aspx?Type=msspeeches

During a recent interview he said:


Simmons: I have for years described two camps: the economists who told us that technology would
always produce new supply and the pessimists or Cassandras who told us that peak was coming in
maybe fifteen or twenty years. We may be finding out that we went over the peak in 2000. That
makes both camps wrong.

Over the last year. I have obtained and closely examined more than 100 very technical production
reports from Saudi Arabia. What I glean from examining the data is that it is very likely that
Saudi Arabia, already a debtor nation, has very likely gone over its Peak. If that is true, then
it is a certainty that planet earth has passed its peak of production.

What that means, in the starkest possible terms, is that we are no longer going to be able to grow.
It's like with a human being who passes a certain age in life. Getting older does not mean the same
thing as death. It means progressively diminishing capacity, a rapid decline, followed by a long
tail.

Interviewer: What about people like Alan Greenspan and popular writers who tell us that there is no
basic problem with energy supplies? Others offer us hydrogen, which is laughed out of hand by
people who have looked at its feasibility and efficiency.

Simmons: Basically they just don't get it. Some of them have gotten lazy. They were so carried
away by the arguments of the economists that they stopped doing their homework. Month by month,
and year by year, events are proving them systematically and thoroughly incorrect. They just don't
get it. Right now, there is a deluge of stories on the wonders of hydrogen. This is another area
of great confusion. Hydrogen is not a primary source of energy. For a Hydrogen Era to occur you
need an abundance of natural gas, or you need to create a great deal of new power plants using
coal and nuclear power. And both are dependent on oil.

[gratelady1]

I found an e-journal, that could be what I originally read years ago- this is the Abstract from the article;

SCIENTIST STIRS THE CAULDRON: OIL, HE SAYS, IS RENEWABLE; [THIRD Edition]
David L. Chandler, Globe staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: May 22, 2001. pg. A.14

Abstract

At least one successful natural gas geologist, though, has sided with Gold's unorthodox concept, which, in essence, goes like this: Far from being the product of decayed vegetation, petroleum is being manufactured constantly in the Earth's crust. It is made from methane, or natural gas, the simplest of all the hydrocarbon fuels, as it bubbles upward from the depths of the Earth where it has existed since the planet's formation more than 4 billion years ago.

If Gold's theory is right, then the Earth's "reserves" of petroleum and natural gas may be hundreds of times greater than most geologists now believe. Oil wells that are pumped dry will simply refill themselves as more methane and petroleum works its way upward to fill the emptied spaces in the rock. This has already happened in a few places, geologists agree - something that is hard to explain by the conventional theory, but lends support to Gold's unorthodox view.

Gold's theory "explains best what we actually encountered in deep drilling operations," said Robert Hefner III, a natural gas geologist who has discovered vast gas deposits in Oklahoma over the last three decades, tapped by some of the deepest wells ever drilled. According to conventional theory, it should be impossible for petroleum or natural gas to even exist at such depths, because the pressure and the high temperatures should have "cooked" the hydrocarbons away, Hefner said in an interview yesterday.

If this works maybe you can read the entire article.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/RFA_Articles/Natural_Gas__Oil_Occur_Natural/natural_gas__oil_occur_natural.html

Also there is this article;
Deep Hole to Test Scientist's Theory on Oil If Maverick Thinker Is Right, Vast Quantities Could Be Made Available; [Home Edition]
LEE DYE. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 2, 1985. pg. 9

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=3&did=64456989&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1137043313&clientId=2945

Whoops! And for even more background;

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

And then theres this;

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

Now if the American Association of Petroleum Geologist think it is worth researching well- come on- there is a reason they (the producers of oil) are going after the "Peak" and not the "limit".

What do you think now?

[gratelady1]

My advice; listen to folks that dont have the price of oil in mind, but the professionals that know about it!

http://www.aapg.org/index.cfm

Your welcome

[gratelady1]

I found an e-journal, that could be what I originally read years ago- this is the Abstract from the article;

SCIENTIST STIRS THE CAULDRON: OIL, HE SAYS, IS RENEWABLE; [THIRD Edition]
David L. Chandler, Globe staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: May 22, 2001. pg. A.14

Abstract

At least one successful natural gas geologist, though, has sided with Gold's unorthodox concept, which, in essence, goes like this: Far from being the product of decayed vegetation, petroleum is being manufactured constantly in the Earth's crust. It is made from methane, or natural gas, the simplest of all the hydrocarbon fuels, as it bubbles upward from the depths of the Earth where it has existed since the planet's formation more than 4 billion years ago.

If Gold's theory is right, then the Earth's "reserves" of petroleum and natural gas may be hundreds of times greater than most geologists now believe. Oil wells that are pumped dry will simply refill themselves as more methane and petroleum works its way upward to fill the emptied spaces in the rock. This has already happened in a few places, geologists agree - something that is hard to explain by the conventional theory, but lends support to Gold's unorthodox view.

Gold's theory "explains best what we actually encountered in deep drilling operations," said Robert Hefner III, a natural gas geologist who has discovered vast gas deposits in Oklahoma over the last three decades, tapped by some of the deepest wells ever drilled. According to conventional theory, it should be impossible for petroleum or natural gas to even exist at such depths, because the pressure and the high temperatures should have "cooked" the hydrocarbons away, Hefner said in an interview yesterday.

If this works maybe you can read the entire article.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/RFA_Articles/Natural_Gas__Oil_Occur_Natural/natural_gas__oil_occur_natural.html

Also there is this article;
Deep Hole to Test Scientist's Theory on Oil If Maverick Thinker Is Right, Vast Quantities Could Be Made Available; [Home Edition]
LEE DYE. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Jun 2, 1985. pg. 9

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?index=3&did=64456989&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1137043313&clientId=2945

Whoops! And for even more background;

http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

And then theres this;

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm

Now if the American Association of Petroleum Geologist think it is worth researching well- come on- there is a reason they (the producers of oil) are going after the "Peak" and not the "limit".

What do you think now?

And another thing, I remember when I was about 8 years old, I asked my dad- "how it was possible that oil/gas came from 1500 feet deep down in the earth, when we were picking up Dinosaur bones off the surface, in sand pits, here in Texas?". My dad told me "I was too smart for my own good- why dont I go and play or something?"

Now when I am much older I add to this question- How is it possible to have 1 trillion bbl (+) of oil from fossils, if the above is taken into consideration and the supply still exists and is still coming- in profitable margins?

And another thing; Like Lynch proposes; How can you make conclusions on any curve, if you dont have both ends constant- ie. If you dont know how long oil/ gas will be available? We have a pretty good idea about how much we have pumped to date, but it is admitted that noone knows how long it will last/ what is the limit of availability.

[MAGI]

What?,
I believe most of our Alaska OIL goes to other countries. Am I wrong? The "boys" just HAVE to keep the barrel price up there to make them MORE wealthy and keep CONTROLL of the WORLD!

AND.......... they just HAVE to get their dirty little hands on ALL that untapped Alaskan OIL! Hummmmmmmmm........maybe there's where the pretence for "studying" "peak oil" comes about.............

They sure CLAIM NOT to believe the possibility of Global Warming. Most likely "the boys" DON'T believe PEAK OIL theories either....when it comes to their.... ALMIGHTY...the GREENBACK!

Their position seems to be "Live Today for Tomorrow we Die". and......... when we die SO should ALL civilization! and, "Let's make the "fools" believe we really care about peak oil!" Can't you just SEE those sneers?

PROOF of my quote:

"Interior Department to Open Alaskan Land to Oil Drilling
Environmentalists Question Statement That Exploration Can Have Minimal Impact on Wildlife

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A08

The Interior Department yesterday agreed to open about 400,000 acres on Alaska's North Slope for exploratory oil drilling, an area that previously had been off limits because of concerns about the impact on wildlife.

Officials said they would lease acreage in the northeastern corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil companies to provide access to domestic oil supplies."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011102211.html

"We recognize . . . the energy needs of this nation," said Susan Childs, an official with the Bureau of Land Management. "So, hopefully, this will alleviate some of the pressure."

Government officials said that the area of the preserve opened yesterday has significant potential for oil development. They estimate it contains about 2 billion barrels of oil that is economically recoverable, along with 3.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The United States consumes more than 20 million barrels of oil per day."

[Jane of Arc]

I found an e-journal, that could be what I originally read years ago- this is the Abstract from the article;

SCIENTIST STIRS THE CAULDRON: OIL, HE SAYS, IS RENEWABLE; [THIRD Edition]
David L. Chandler, Globe staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: May 22, 2001. pg. A.14

Abstract

At least one successful natural gas geologist, though, has sided with Gold's unorthodox concept, which, in essence, goes like this: Far from being the product of decayed vegetation, petroleum is being manufactured constantly in the Earth's crust. It is made from methane, or natural gas, the simplest of all the hydrocarbon fuels, as it bubbles upward from the depths of the Earth where it has existed since the planet's formation more than 4 billion years ago.

If Gold's theory is right, then the Earth's "reserves" of petroleum and natural gas may be hundreds of times greater than most geologists now believe. Oil wells that are pumped dry will simply refill themselves as more methane and petroleum works its way upward to fill the emptied spaces in the rock. This has already happened in a few places, geologists agree - something that is hard to explain by the conventional theory, but lends support to Gold's unorthodox view.

Gold's theory "explains best what we actually encountered in deep drilling operations," said Robert Hefner III, a natural gas geologist who has discovered vast gas deposits in Oklahoma over the last three decades, tapped by some of the deepest wells ever drilled. According to conventional theory, it should be impossible for petroleum or natural gas to even exist at such depths, because the pressure and the high temperatures should have "cooked" the hydrocarbons away, Hefner said in an interview yesterday.

What do you think now?

What do I think now? I think you're cool gratelady1 for contributing to this important debate so thoughtfully!

My opinion: I think the late maverick astronomer, Thomas Gold was right: there are hydrocarbons on other planets, even in deep space. Why shouldn't we expect to find primordial hydrocarbons on Earth? I think the debate between the 'biotic' group and the 'abiotic' group will find the truth right in the middle. Both are correct and there aren't just fossil fuel hydrocarbons.

There are plenty of oil geologists who call abiotic energy complete bunk. Here's an example:
http://www.energybulletin.net/11695.html

But, there's evidence by Dudley Herschbach, Baird research professor of science and recipient of the 1986 Nobel Prize in chemistry abiotic can be produced:
http://cortez.gnn.tv/blogs/10279/Hydrocarbon_Heresy_Rocks_into_Gas

The Hefner experience turned out to be an unlucky strike:
http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

The problem is retrieving this energy source from the deep inner core of the earth.


"Years ago Thomas Gold recognized that the best test of the abiotic theory would be to drill into the crystalline basement rock underlying later sedimentary accumulations to see if there is indeed oil there. He persuaded the government of Sweden in 1988 to drill 4.5 miles down into granite that had been fractured by a meteorite strike (the fracturing is what permitted drillers to go so deep). The borehole, which cost millions to drill, yielded 80 barrels of oil. Even though the project (briefly re-started in 1991) was a commercial failure, Gold maintained that his ideas had been vindicated. Most geologists remained skeptical, however, suggesting that the recovered oil likely came from drilling mud."

[gratelady1]

I still would like to know, how and what your explaination is for the fact that as Lynch mentioned that the conclusionary end of the Peak theory is not known, or constant and that all figures derived for thier conclusions are based on assumptions?

[Jane of Arc]

I still would like to know, how and what your explaination is for the fact that as Lynch mentioned that the conclusionary end of the Peak theory is not known, or constant and that all figures derived for thier conclusions are based on assumptions?
I've done a lot of reading on all sides, including Lynch. I find that the people who say peak oil is either here or coming soon provide much more statistical evidence through thoughtful research, facts and analysis, while the opponents of peak oil tend to put their efforts into debunking peak oil providing much less statistical evidence.

Also, the peak oil people span all political sides from left to right, while the anti-peak oil people are mostly industy driven.

I find the biggest independent powerbrokers are on the side of peak oil, for example the multi-billionaire Richard Rainwater, who had made fortunes anticipating global trends.
http://www.energybulletin.net/11695.html

The bottom line is an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

Gratelady1 ... I am not a pessimist. I don't look forward to a world without oil. It's damn scary. I want the oil to keep flowing and the party to continue. But I also don't want to be stupid. I'm paying close attention and trying my best to make informed decisions.

I strongly suggest you take a walk on the wild side and check out the voices of peak oil and their online debate.

www.LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net
www.DieOff.org

[gratelady1]

I've done a lot of reading on all sides, including Lynch. I find that the people who say peak oil is either here or coming soon provide much more statistical evidence through thoughtful research, facts and analysis, while the opponents of peak oil tend to put their efforts into debunking peak oil providing much less statistical evidence.

Also, the peak oil people span all political sides from left to right, while the anti-peak oil people are mostly industy driven.

I find the biggest independent powerbrokers are on the side of peak oil, for example the multi-billionaire Richard Rainwater, who had made fortunes anticipating global trends.
http://www.energybulletin.net/11695.html

The bottom line is an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

Gratelady1 ... I am not a pessimist. I don't look forward to a world without oil. It's damn scary. I want the oil to keep flowing and the party to continue. But I also don't want to be stupid. I'm paying close attention and trying my best to make informed decisions.

I strongly suggest you take a walk on the wild side and check out the voices of peak oil and their online debate.

www.LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net
www.DieOff.org

Ok I will take a walk on the wild side- I take that to mean, allow myself to be scared to death about the supply and demand issue of oil.

I still dont think I read an understanding by you, in any post, about the lack of credible premises by the Peak oil report, or any report obviously designed to do one thing- influence the price of oil.

If you understand a normal curve, or any kind of curve, you can estimate anything- if you assume. The report noted in the "Abstract"- that "No one knows for sure how long oil supplies will last"- without this specific intersection/point, you cant determine the shape of a curve. This is a fact- I can even understand.

The report honestly and openly stated that it "had to make assumptions"- if for no other reason, to continue the report- otherwise without conclusive final data, you cant submit all the graphs and data they submitted.

I hate to be harsh- but it would be characterized as nothing but "Junk science"- And anyone with anykind of "Methods" or "statistics" experience, can see through this.

I asked you not to get mad, because this report seemed important to you, and I hope you dont take this personal, and admit to what you have read- that the report is lacking, at best!

You claim that opponents to peak oil tend to seek out to debunk, and dont provide much statistical evidence, This is interesting, because I believe you are onto something here- If I cant come up with good statistical evidence, because I believe in submitting only actual provable evidence, then does that mean I cant counter someone who submits evidence drawn only on admitted assumptions?

Here is an example of what I mean; I can provide you a line continuum from 1-10; 1--------------10, the mid-point can be measured by dividing the line so the average center point is 5- this is simple.
I presented a start and end point.

The peak oil folks present something like this 0------------------>??????
their midpoint is ?- there is no end point. So to present thier report they assume one; for instance;
0--------------------------56 (56 being an assumed end point derived from who knows where)- so they conclude 28 as a mid-point.

The problem is this data is then compiled upon by other researchers, and then thier analysis is compiled upon, and then others, and the whole thing is derived upon assumed data- which is not real or certain- and thus not emperical or scientific- as defined by the scientific method.

I dont care about much of this- because I know what I believe, and I can assume what you believe, but I think you have a responsibility- just as the authors of Peak Oil had to admit, that this report admits that certain important data is "assumed- and not known".

Another interesting point that you presented was who is presenting what research- The Peak oil folks ar enothing more than finacial anlayst types and the Counter point folks are actual geologist.

I took a geology class once- What I learned was is a rock dont lie, look at it, study it, compare it to others and you can define a rock.

On the other hand, I took an accounting class- I learned you can enter any numbers into the books- anything- as long as it is added up right in the end- nothing else matters- remember Enron, and others?

[Jane of Arc]

gratelady1~

First of all ... you can't make me mad. I've noticed in your posts you try very hard to have real discussions with people on the other side and all they do is turn it into a pissing contest which ruins any and all discussion. You and I apparently disagree on this issue and that is fine. We are both seeking answers to a difficult question. I have gone back and forth on the subject for years depending on what book I was reading at the time like a bouncing ball. But every ball lands and my judgement landed on the side of peak oil. I pray I'm dead wrong.

Okay the Michael Lynch vs. geophysicist, Dr. M. King Hubbert debate ... Lynch has done a great job in politically attacking the Hubbert model. He has most economists cheering him on. Economists do NOT want to believe the peak oil people because they would be out of business. He tears down Hubbert's curve model saying it's based on "observation" and "the amount of recoverable oil can't be known" and "what about renewable fuel and new technology". But, I am willing to accept those variables with the Hubbert model because I believe the concept is sound. And here's the beef with Lynch ... he's good at tearing down theories, but where is his production model? Where is his proof?

Let me try to make this simple, bear with me:

Oil is finite. Most of the major deposits have been found. There has not been a discovery boom for 20 years. Oil field are drying up in America, in the North Sea, in the UK and all over the world. Why do we even have to do expensive deep ocean drilling if oil is so abundant? And oil is concentrated into captured pockets, now easy to find with new technology.
http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/images/antitrap.gif

1. So, at one point in history the production of conventional oil was 0, and at some future date the final oil production will be 0.

2. The annual production in between the initial and final numbers will be a positive number and if you made a graph where the x-axis is the year and the y-axis is that year's production, the area under the resultant 'curve' would be the ultimately recoverable oil.

3. Somewhere on the curve there will be a peak year for production. That peak year could be 2006 or 2025 unless some major cataclysm occurs to end production in which event the peak would be defined not by geology, but by catastrophe.

It's really that simple. But this is only Hubbert's theory and there are many other reasons why many other scientists believe in peak oil. Just take a look at the price of oil ... it's going UP >>>UP>>>UP>>>>> and it will continue to rise the more valuable it becomes.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/images/chron8-05.gif

Crime 1: As long as oil is perceived as lasting last forever ... new technology is not being developed.

Crime 2: We are NOT conserving and we should be!

Crime 3: We are NOT making enegy efficient cars, but driving SUV's.

Crime 4: Bush knows all about this and he is doing nothing to encourage conservation.

Crime 5: Bush is illegally attacking innocent counties for oil. Diplomacy would of worked better.

Crime 6: There is no alternative energy that replaces oil and society is heading for a cliff. Disaster could be prevented, but it's much easier for people to choose to believe the Michael Lynch's of the world.

[gratelady1]

Ok "What", If you want me to agree with you- I will, If this is what you want to hear- I will say it, I will say what ever you want to hear.

We will someday run out of oil. We should be implementing those actions that will, at least, reserve some oil for future use.

So logically deducing- we shoud take oil off the stock market- stop trading that resource, and heavily regulate it- in fact only the military should be allowed to use it- and even they- should do it under strict control. Since noone can or will drill for oil that does not exist- we should not pay any oil company anything for a gallon of gas- it dont exist- this is our new montra.

So where do we go from here, what legislation do we need ot pass?

First we should stop wasting all the fuel used by these tankers coming out here and order them to stay where they are and stop coming out here to these empty oil wells.

Next we need to pay to build more hydro-electric plants and nuclear plants- screw what the Liberals/ green peace say- this is and emergency- and we need to be in control!

[Jane of Arc]

Ok "What", If you want me to agree with you- I will, If this is what you want to hear- I will say it, I will say what ever you want to hear.

We will someday run out of oil. We should be implementing those actions that will, at least, reserve some oil for future use.

So logically deducing- we shoud take oil off the stock market- stop trading that resource, and heavily regulate it- in fact only the military should be allowed to use it- and even they- should do it under strict control. Since noone can or will drill for oil that does not exist- we should not pay any oil company anything for a gallon of gas- it dont exist- this is our new montra.

So where do we go from here, what legislation do we need ot pass?

First we should stop wasting all the fuel used by these tankers coming out here and order them to stay where they are and stop coming out here to these empty oil wells.

Next we need to pay to build more hydro-electric plants and nuclear plants- screw what the Liberals/ green peace say- this is and emergency- and we need to be in control!

Sarcasm is hard to detect in written words. You're being sarcastic, right? Well, it's up to you to believe what you desire to believe. Obviously, you don't think there's a problem. So you can do nothing. Whew, what a relief! Wish I were you.

I don't have faith in profit-driven big business or the morals of big government. What do these fat cats care about what will happen to billions of people? These old duffers are set for their lifetimes. As for me, I am formulating a personal plan with others that lessens our dependence on oil and builds a substainable future.

[gratelady1]

Sarcasm is hard to detect in written words. You're being sarcastic, right? Well, it's up to you to believe what you desire to believe. Obviously, you don't think there's a problem. So you can do nothing. Whew, what a relief! Wish I were you.

I don't have faith in profit-driven big business or the morals of big government. What do these fat cats care about what will happen to billions of people? These old duffers are set for their lifetimes. As for me, I am formulating a personal plan with others that lessens our dependence on oil and builds a substainable future.

I cant believe you think I am being sarcastic- I strongly and sincerely believe- despite the useless "Peak oil report", that there are other reasons to take action now- and it has nothing to do with the potentiality of the availibility of oil.

Look at it this way- I say "I believe in Jesus"- (I really dont) but I will say it- if it will get me to Heaven, Hippocritical for sure, but if the price of a ticket insures the seat- pay the price man!

I will say it again- I am not the enemy here- but it would give everything credibility- if you admit the faults of your premises- at the onset- so we wont be derailed later- By stupid smart-asses like me! Get me now?

[Jane of Arc]

I will say it again- I am not the enemy here- but it would give everything credibility- if you admit the faults of your premises- at the onset- so we wont be derailed later- By stupid smart-asses like me! Get me now?
(1) What in the world did you derail?

(2) These are not my premises.

(3) Faults? Admitting my faults? Is this a contest? Silly me. I thought we were exchanging ideas on an important topic.

[Jane of Arc]

http://www.citgo.com/Images/CITGOlogoSmall.gif Do you know why there's no exit strategy in Iraq? Because the Neocons who planned this fiasco 10 years ago never intended to leave. The PNAC plan was to invade Iraq, set up a "democratic" US friendly government and establish permanent military bases to safeguard the oil and multi-national corporations. And they are doing this with our tax dollars and THE LIVES of our sons and daughters. Our unsupecting troops are dying for corporate profit.

If we want to make our voices heard, we can do so with our money. ONLY BUY GAS FROM CITGO. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.)

Citgo is the world's only state-owned oil company. President Chavez uses oil profits to help the poor and impoverished, rather than giving windfall profits to rich corporate executives and shareholders.

Spread the word: buy CITGO!!!

And Citgo is offering savings!!! Check this out:

http://www.citgo.com/Promotions.jsp
http://www.citgo.com/Images/home-citgoplus.jpg

[Jane of Arc]

On the subject of oil ... why did Bush say in his State of the Union speech that we need to break our addiction to oil? Why? There's plenty of oil, right? It's going to go on and on for centuries to come ... replenishing itself ... renewing itself ... balloons and happy faces everywhere ... Mary Poppins floats by smiling and waving ... and the oil fairy dances on frothy, white clouds in our perfect sky...

Or maybe that was his lame way of saying ... s**t's gonna hit the fan soon folks.

Can you say "Peak Oil?"

[MAGI]

Can anyone access Maureen Dowds column on oil this week? 'Twas good..........

[MAGI]

From Mother Jones, MoJo Blog

:http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/02/sweden_to_go_oi.html


"Sweden to Go Oil-Free
This is genuinely exciting news (there's so little these days…). It looks like Sweden is preparing a plan to become an "oil-free" economy by 2020:


The attempt by the country of 9 million people to become the world's first practically oil-free economy is being planned by a committee of industrialists, academics, farmers, car makers, civil servants and others, who will report to parliament in several months.

The intention, the Swedish government said yesterday, is to replace all fossil fuels with renewables before climate change destroys economies and growing oil scarcity leads to huge new price rises.

Sweden has a decent head start—about 26 percent of its energy already comes from renewable resources (the EU average is 6 percent)—and plans to meet its goal by using biofuels, along with wave and wind power, to generate the needed electricity, rather than relying on new nuclear plants, which already supply half of the country's electricity.

The Volvos, meanwhile, will all run on hydrogen. Or at least that's the plan, though granted, lots of smart people think hydrogen-run cars are easier said than done. Joseph Romm, a former Energy Department official under Clinton and the author of The Hype of Hydrogen, has leveled a number of criticisms along this front—for one, a hydrogen-powered economy can end up using more total energy because all of that hydrogen needs to be transported around to filling stations, and it's harder to ship than gasoline. And a relatively recent study by Argonne National Laboratory estimated that installing the vast infrastructure to equip 40 percent of American vehicles to run on hydrogen would cost $500 billion or more. Obviously Sweden's not as big as the United States, but that's a lot of money, and it will be interesting to see whether the Swedes can pull this all off.

Now the obvious question: Why can't the United States do something like this? There are major differences between us and Sweden, sure: the latter is much smaller, uses less oil, has an abundance of rivers, more nuclear power plants, and less sprawl. That all makes things much easier. And, according to Prime Minister Goran Persson, Sweden's farms and forests are more conducive to generating biofuel than America's. But as I've pointed out before, it's physically impossible to power the whole world—or even more than a small portion—with biofuel, and the United States would have to find its own mix of renewable resources no matter what (most likely involving a heavy dose of solar). So Sweden's not, in a strict sense, a "model" here.

Still, this is what a grown-up approach to energy policy looks like. Nothing mind-blowing. Nothing impossible. All you need is a government willing to act. The contrast between the Swedes and an administration that backtracks from even modest statements on ending our oil addiction—and then lays off 32 workers at the National Renewable Energy Lab because of a $28 million budget shortfall there—pretty much speaks for itself. Lucky us.

Posted by Bradford Plumer on 02/08/06 at 12:37 PM "


YES!
If you have time, I think you'll appreciate the "comments" if you read the whole article. :thumbup:

[Jane of Arc]

PEAK OIL ARRIVED ... STONE AGE RETURNS 2025

It's all about the oil.

Take oil out of our lives and everything stops. Everything. It's the blood of our civilization. And to date, nothing replaces oil ... even combining all other energy sources ... is not nearly enough.

When you read "peak oil has arrived ... Stone Age returns 2025" ... does it impact you? Do you know what it means? Does it just overwhelm you? Or do you think why bother with something I can't control? Do you think it's nonsense? Even if you think it's nonsense you owe it to your children to learn as much as you can, just in case the people at Princeton University are right.

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.

Ethanol, fuel cells, and solar cells are not the only shimmering dreams. Methane hydrates, oil shale, and the Yucca Mountain radioactive