[Questions for: Dr. Colin J. Campbell]

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:20 pm Post subject: Good Deal

Sounds Great
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

Ralph · Coal Joined: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 3

My early knowledge, based on your internet talk and on Richard Heinberg's books, suggests to me that food production and dietary restructuring perhaps ought to be the first focus of emergency planning for a future of less petroleum.

Although the transportation segment as a whole may be (?) a greater net consumer of petroleum, it seems sensible to begin planning around the survival links in the chain of civilization.

Any hard constraints that flow from these survival activities might then be used to plan outward until it begins to become clear where the line must be drawn, beyond which existing uses of energy are no longer practical.

So, food plus food-to-market transport. This then brings in, of course, fertilizer, insect control, and their production and transportation requirements.

Plus water and sewage management, though I suspect energy is not a primary limiting factor for those activities.

When that survival machinery is all counted up, I think the resulting subset of industrial activity is more approachable than trying to "fix" or evaluate everything at once.

This might add some psychological advantage, and may also help convey the urgency of the problem.

Would you care to comment?

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: Makes sense

This makes sense Ralph.

The water and sewer systems in this area are somewhat energy dependant because they require electric motors for pumps to move the water or sewerage.

Again locally we do have gravity to bring in the water but thin it must be pumped once it arrives.
From my home the sewage goes through a pumping station. This isnâ€™t true of all this area but my neighborhood. Before the sewage arrives at the treatment center it all will be pumped.

This system is energy dependant.

But preparing for food shortages does make sense to me.

Is this a question for Dr. Campbell?
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

Ralph · Coal Joined: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 3

Yes, the question is for Dr. Campbell.

Thank you.

2007 · Heavy Crude Joined: Aug 23, 2004 Posts: 141

MissingLink and PO,

I would like to ask Mr. Campbell a question (if it's not too late).

Mr. Campbell,

I would like to ask you a question. As far as I'm aware, there are different approaches to PO. Skrebowski look as coming projects and has a very short list after 2008, the geologists look at reserves and production/ decline profiles and a person like Matthew Simmons looks at the technology (in SA). My question: have you got anything additional to say to Simmons 'super straws', what I'm wondering, do you think that Saudi Arabia depletion is hidden because of technology and will eventually 'hit a wall'?

That was my question but I'm also curious about another thing: Hubert King, before PO became an 'issue of awareness', how was Hubbert King regarded in the petroleum industry? As a grand authority - or as a contributor on a more general level?

Not knowing much about Hubbert King, he must have been very 'self assertive'' - to stand alone and express his opinion. I guess there was no country in decline to support him at that time - yet he insisted on 'his' data.

Thanks!

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:11 am Post subject: not to late

We will continue to ask questions on a weekly to bi-weekly schedule.

I would ask you to read some of his papers. I have been spending more time reading so as to not send questions that are pretty well answered.
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

Ralph · Coal Joined: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 3

Where can I find Dr. Campbell's papers?

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:27 am Post subject: Try this

Try this link

http://www.asponews.org/

I have been reading everything at ASPO. I am reading and listening to everything at this site.
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

MarkL · Moderator Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 281 Location: US

Dr. Campbell,

Does the Oil and Gas Liquids 2004 Scenario incorporate the impact of demand destruction in the calculation of the production rates after the peak? If so, was the impact of the 1979 energy crisis used as a model for this?. Many posters on the peakoil.com website are arguing that demand destruction will significantly reduce oil demand after a peak oil induced global depression.

thanks,
Mark

Done Mark, ML

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:06 pm Post subject: note

Questions will be submitted weekly. I will attempt to send all questions to him I can.
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:23 pm Post subject: Markl

Mark specifically what are you refering to. Demand Destruction? Burn off gases?
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

MarkL · Moderator Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 281 Location: US

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:26 pm Post subject: by guest

Submitted by a guest

Mr. Campbell, what role do you see for coal liquefaction?
This is something that usually ignored in the whole Peak Oil debate, but liquified coal can absolutely be used to substitute on a large scale for oil.
The problem, of course, is that there are lead times of several years until new capacity can be brought online, so there will certainly be a 7+ year long period of worsening energy crisis.
Nevertheless, once the fact of Peak Oil has been understood I don't see what should be keeping us from doing what the South Africans did under Apartheid - run a large part of the economy on liquified coal (the S.A.'s used up to 2/3 coal derived petroleum products).
Yes it's not good for the climate as you will probably have something like 50% more Co2 emissions, but seriously, that will not prevent the implementation of the process from going forward. The Chinese have already started to build coal liquefaction capacity and the are seeking partners such as Shell and SASOL to do large scale coal liquefaction.
SASOL quotes a cost of $20 per barrel.
As far as I can see, the availability of coal liquefaction means that there will be no end to the industrialized society as we see it today.
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

Cool Hand Linc · Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:51 pm Post subject: Demand destruction

Mark L.

Look at what happened during the Oil embargo in the early 70's.

This could be a good topic for a thread. Show the graph and state your case.

I believe that any price change or disruption in the supply of oil does have a reaction in the market. We have been having increased prices and increased attempts at efficiency. Increased costs of fuel oil for heating has resulted in using better insulations, better designs, better windows etcetera. Increased cost of gasoline has resulted in better aero dynamics, better methods for reducing friction in several areas, etc. More efficiency in appliances and through out the market.

I think that these factors are already at play and will continue to be in play.
_________________
Peace out!

Cool Hand Linc Cool

MarkL · Moderator Joined: Sep 13, 2004 Posts: 281 Location: US