Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Did you just call me furry? I know there is only one "r" in there, making the word "fury", like anger, general unhappiness.
Capitalism is doomed, that much we agree. We can also agree that the rural areas will be in better shape than urban areas. Unfortunately, one major US city being able to barely support its water grid in an emergency does not give me any reason to think we are prepared. _________________ "If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"George W. Bush loves poor people. He keeps making more of them." -unkn
Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Why I am not as worried about Peak Oil...
JayHMorrison wrote:
After doing a lot of research, I am not nearly as worried as I used to be.
Nor am I.
Quote:
I think we could cut our energy consumption by 50%. Japan and many European countries produce almost the same GDP per capita as the US on 1/2 the energy.
Maybe 10-15% without an economic crises, but not 50%.
Quote:
There might even be diesel hybrids that get 70+ mpg by then.
We will also be thinking seriously about extra driving that we dont need to make.
I believe this will contribute the lion's share of that "10% cut in consumption."
Quote:
That tells me that the first few years of post peak oil are survivable.
The problem, as I see it, is economic. We have more debt now than at any time in our history. We can cut back energy consumption and survive, but as our economy falters and sputters, we begin to see debt implosion. And this would be on a worldwide stage (industrialized nations). How deep and severe the implosion, we can only speculate. And how fast can we recover from such a downturn? I have my doubts that alternative energy sources will be on-line in time to correct the effects of such an implosion. We're in a horse race, and most politicians haven't even saddled their horse.
Most people here seem to agree that governments aren't going to do anything about the impending peak simply because there is no economic benefit.
Some people here seem to think that a "cooldown" is possible- marked by economic hardships, power outages, changes in way of life, gradually declining populations- but not necessarily the worst case "die-off" scenario imagined by others.
What will make the difference between a "cooldown" and a "die-off?" Some people have mentioned that fuel-efficient vehicles are one of the first stages- the more fuel-efficient your transportation system, the more feasible a switchover to ethanol and biodiesel would be.
The other critical problem, as I see it, is agriculture's dependancy on petroleum for pesticides and fertilizers. An article discussed the possibility of crops that were less dependant on pesticides and fertilizers- and mentioned the lack of government interest (and yes, by "interest," I really do mean "funding") in such endeavours.
The major barriers in both areas seem to be economic, rather than physical. Not that the economy is "imaginary," but sometimes is it not possible to circumvent economic barriers through physical means?
It was previous mentioned in this thread that "high" petrol prices in the United States (above $2) were causing increased interest in hybrids and were dropping SUV sales. Petrol (and oil) prices have since dropped somewhat, but this spike gives us an indication of what would happen after oil peaked- interest (too late) in the kinds of technology that might turn a die-off into a cooldown.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the factors influencing higher fuel prices was the increase in terrorist-like resistance in Iraq. While America was struck at the heart by the beheading of one of her citizens, she was struck at the pump by sabotage of Iraqi oil infrastructure. And moves in the right direction in terms of vehicle fuel economy were the result.
What if prices hit $3? $5? Barring some sort of magic deflation, this will happen eventually, but it appears that the sooner it happens, (provided we're still on the uphill/plateu of the Hubbert bell curve) the better. These "high" (Europe is already paying them) prices could be attained through government control, i.e. taxing, or they could be the result of actions on the part of individuals with neither political nor economic clout.
The United States is an idea case for this idea, not only because it is the biggest consumer, but because it is separated by water from all of the major exporters aside from Venezuela. Oil, which the United States must import to sustain current usage levels, must come from a ship, then be processed at a refinery before it's useful- two "bottlenecks."
Disruption of refineries or port facilities, would, theoretically, reduce supply and raise petrol prices. A refinery takes years to build. Refining capability lost to could not be quickly made up. Price rises would be long-term- almost the same effect as the beginning "slide" after the peak, except only fuel would be affected.
The desired effect would be not only to promote the use of hybrid (diesel-electric, ideally) vehicles, but to bring the oil issue into the spotlight...
I think I'll stop before I start to scare myself. Maybe some more later.
Yes, I'm new, and yes, I'm crazy. Thanks for listening.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:30 pm Post subject:
Welcome to the boards .
From New_User:
Quote:
Most people here seem to agree that governments aren't going to do anything about the impending peak simply because there is no economic benefit.
I would not speak for others, but I would say that governments aren't going to do anything because they are not convinced there is sufficient cause for alarm. They believe we have plenty of time. This is because world oil supply data is so unreliable that most experts and official government agencies who have an interest in this matter are forced to make educated guesses instead of informed policies. In other words, government leaders have no cover and can't propose remedies to a problem that the USGS, DOA, IEA etc will not admit actually exists.
So we are in a holding pattern at present. When the first of the energy shocks hit home, possibly some minds will change. My guess is it will not be an oil shock, it will natural gas. And it will be soon.
I would not speak for others, but I would say that governments aren't going to do anything because they are not convinced there is sufficient cause for alarm. They believe we have plenty of time.
Some may believe that. But I think the current administration does not. As others have pointed out, these are oilmen. They know the score. According to one of their task force reports, they are afraid peak oil and its problems (including "civil unrest") may be upon us by 2006.
I think the real problem is the short term outlook caused by the election cycle. Our leaders only look two or four or six years ahead - to the next election. If they don't, they aren't elected.
Even if we get a soft landing...IME as a transportation engineer, we won't have to worry about what kind of hybrid vehicle is best, because without cheap oil, there won't be a highway system on which to drive said vehicles. Our transportation system requires cheap oil. We pay taxes for roads because we all use them. Even people who don't have cars use the highways, because their food, clothing, and other supplies are shipped via truck.
That won't be happening once the price of oil spikes. People won't be able to afford to buy stuff that's shipped from any distance away. People who can't afford cars will resent paying taxes to upgrade highways for those who do.
And building and maintaining roads will become more expensive. Asphalt is made of petroleum. Concrete and steel are also produced using a lot of fossil fuels. We'll be looking at ever-higher investment that yields ever-diminishing returns. I suspect that relatively quickly, we'll give up even trying to maintain the highway system. With no highways, cars will be fairly useless.
would not speak for others, but I would say that governments aren't going to do anything because they are not convinced there is sufficient cause for alarm. They believe we have plenty of time.
I would say the governments are doing lots of things but they aren't really helpful:
Like the USA harassing various countries. China and Japan battling for oil rights in Russia, Iran and SA. Russia trying to gain state control over the oil industry. Nigeria and Iran trying to do the same.
So far these countries have only managed to seriously harm the oil production and to hamper exploration and development.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:27 am Post subject:
I think Simmons certainly believes in peak oil before 2010. I don't see any direct statement in the Cheney task force report where he speaks of peak oil by 2006. I think the Bush administration believes the oil that we need is out there, we just need to be able to access it. Of course they are planning for a possible interruption in supply, civil unrest etc. But seriously planning for peak oil? No.
There is a problem with credibility. So far we have gadflies like Simmons and Campbell trying to get the horse's attention. Lots of tail-swishing going on, but the horse is continuing to munch. We need a large hornet like AAPG or USGS to go after the horse's nose. Failing that, it will take a true energy shock to get a reaction. Even then there is no guarantee that peak oil will be acknowledged. It may be written off as just a temporary supply problem.
I think Simmons certainly believes in peak oil before 2010. I don't see any direct statement in the Cheney task force report where he speaks of peak oil by 2006. I think the Bush administration believes the oil that we need is out there, we just need to be able to access it.
I disagree. I wasn't referring to either Simmons or the infamous Cheney task force. I was referring to the Baker report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century.
...there is no alternative. And there is no time to waste. The problems facing the energy sector will take at least three to five years to solve.
"We have no time to waste" combined with "problems will take at least 3-5 years to solve" suggests to me that they expected the crisis to hit within 3-5 years, certainly not much longer. And the report was written in 2001.
Then there's the Cheney speech, linked to on the ASPO front page:
I think the evidence suggests that Bush, Cheney, etc., are well aware of oil depletion. But they can't say so. No one wants to hear it. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
I would not speak for others, but I would say that governments aren't going to do anything because they are not convinced there is sufficient cause for alarm. They believe we have plenty of time.
Quote:
So we are in a holding pattern at present. When the first of the energy shocks hit home, possibly some minds will change. My guess is it will not be an oil shock, it will natural gas.
It seems to me like the sooner we start to address the issue, the better off we'll be when the crash hits. Some speculate we won't start to really address the issue until the crash hits- or rather, until the economic symptoms of the crash appear.
So wouldn't causing symptoms to appear before the actual crash be beneficial to us in the long run? The sooner we start our detox from oil, the more peope will live through the crash.
Our refineries and tankers are at their maximum capacity right now- once again, correct me if I'm wrong, but each refinery that's bombed or tanker that's sunk would be a (temporary, and in the timeframe before the crash, likely permanent) permanent loss to all of the oil-reliant sectors of our economy, which seems to be almost all of them.
Makes me think I should be giving money to Al-Qaeda instead of the Red Cross.
If they could only hit those tankers when they were empty- I'm not so down with loss of life and oil spills.
The Bush Admin most certainly knows about Peak Oil. In addition to the evidence and links provided above, consider:
1. The CIA know about Peak Oil in the 1970's (See "Smoking Gun" on Museletter.com)
2. George Bush Senior was director of the CIA in the 1970's, VP in the 1980's, and the big P in the late 80's and early 90's.
Remeber, the job of the CIA is to protect Wall Street - America's financial engine. Oil is key for the engine to run. So the CIA knows about the scope of the crisis in great detail.
They may even persuse this forum to find out the degree to which the peasents have awoken.
Saudi Aramco, Haliburton, Lockhead Martin, Shell, Occidental Petroleum, GM, Ford, Defense Information Agency, visit my site on a regular basis.
I'm sure they do to this one also.
Again, not to find out information as they are already aware of all this stuff, but to figure out to what degree they need to perform crowd control.
Anybody see the program on Fox with Newt Gringrich about how "Yeah, there are oil problems, but we got it under control . . . "
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:02 pm Post subject:
I have no doubt that the Bush Admin knows full well about peak oil. Indeed, if someone can produce any quotes from the admin that they think peak oil will happen before 2010, and they have a plan to deal with it, then I will be glad to change my opinion. There is big difference in Bush being AWARE of peak oil and actually believing it is imminent.
Can anyone quote the admin as believing the Saudis might not have the huge reserves they say they have? I haven't seen such a quote. I would love to see it. Even that would be some evidence that they are considering peak oil within the next few years.
“By some estimates, there will be an average of two percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.” “That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.”
Dick Cheney _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 2 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
.
