HAHAHA.....more oil news!!!!

Have kids? Better teach them survival skills!!! hehehe!!

We're fucked!!!

The era of cheap, abundant oil, which has supported world economic growth for more than three quarters of a century, is most probably at or past its absolute peak, according to leading independent oil geologists. If this analysis is accurate, the economic and social consequences will be staggering. This reality is being hidden from general discussion by the oil multinationals and major government agencies, above all by the United States government. Oil companies have a vested interest in hiding the truth in order to keep the price of getting new oil as low as possible. The US government has a strategic interest in keeping the rest of the world from realising how critical the problem has become.

According to the best estimates of a number of respected international geologists, including the French Petroleum Institute, Colorado School of Mines, Uppsala University and Petroconsultants in Geneva, the world will likely feel the impact of the peaking of most of the present large oil fields and the dramatic fall in supply by the end of this decade, 2010, or possibly even several years sooner. At that point, the world economy will face shocks which will make the oil price rises of the 1970's pale by contrast. In other words, we face a major global energy shortage for the prime fuel of our entire economy within about seven years.

Source

Soon after September 11, 2001, the discussion by American government officials regarding the American response began to pour forth. A memorable one was by American Vice-President Dick Cheney, who before becoming vice-president had been leader of the largest oilfield supply company in the world. Dick Cheney said regarding the goals of "terrorists" and the "appropriate" American response: "The American way of life is non-negotiable".

That mindset explains why President Bush AND presidential nominee John Kerry BOTH favor continuance of the American war in Iraq and why vice-presidential nominee John Edwards said at the Boston convention: "We are going to WIN that war!" That is why the American military in Iraq is invading nonstrategic cities like Najaf with overwhelming force, disarming Iraqis and preventing the institution of a free democracy in Iraq while advocating the Orwellian concept of "Democracy by appointment" (by an occupying military power).

The American government officials and presidential candidates of both parties know all about Peak Oil and the fact that (UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES) the American way of life (as we know it) is nearing its end. Even if the U.S. were to successfully continue its policy and maintain control of Iraqi oil and even extend the policy and control all Persian Gulf Oil, the end is in sight for the consumerist American way of life.

Source

I really really feel for those of you who have infants or very young children......

they're fucked!

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ August 16, 2004 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Jumper69 ]</font>

If the price of oil truly gets that high, presumably this will encourage 1) use of other sources of energy (ie. solar, nuclear, wind, etc), and 2) will encourage exploration in areas that have so far uneconomic or out of bounds (Arctic Refuge, Canadian shale).

Interestingly, it wasn't that long ago that I read (and posted) articles on the discovery of oil in places where it was previously thought unavailable. There was speculation that fossil fuels were in fact *not* fossil fuels and reserves could potentially be more ubiquitous than ever imagined.

I can't help but wonder about the resurgence of articles on the shortage of oil during the reelection campaign of what is considered an "oil" president. Makes me scratch my head.

<font color="#000002" size="1">[ August 16, 2004 05:09 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>

Reason opined...

Quote:

---

If the price of oil truly gets that high, presumably this will encourage 1) use of other sources of energy (ie. solar, nuclear, wind, etc), and 2) will encourage exploration in areas that have so far uneconomic or out of bounds (Arctic Refuge, Canadian shale).

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unfortunately, the ability of alternative energy to replace oil is based more in mythology and utopian fantasy than in reality and hard science. Oil accounts for 40% of our current US energy supply. None of the alternatives to oil can supply anywhere near this much energy, let alone the amount we will need in the future as our population continues to grow and industrialize. When examining alternatives to oil, it is of critical importance that you ask certain questions:

1. Is the alternative easily transportable like oil?

2. Is the alternative energy dense like oil?

3. Is the alternative capable of being adapted for transportation, heating, and the production of fertilizers, plastics, and pesticides?

4. Does the alternative have an Energy Profit Ratio (EPR) comparable to oil? Oil used to have an EPR of 100 to 1. It only took one barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil. It is now more like 10 to 1.

Reason mentioned Nuclear power:

1. Nuclear power is extremely expensive. A single reactor costs between 3 and 5 billion dollars, not counting the costs associated with decommissioning, increased costs for scarcer nuclear fuels; increased costs to safeguard nuclear facilities and materials from sabotage, terrorism, and diversion; increased likelihood of major, multi-billion-dollar accidents and their disrupting economic effects.

2. Number of reactors needed in the US: 800-1000. Current number: only 100.

3. Retrofitting current vehicles to run on nuclear-generated electricity would further increase the expenses related to a nuclear solution.

4. Nuclear power cannot be used to produce plastics, pesticides, or fertilizer.

5. Uranium requires energy from oil in order to be mined. As oil gets more expensive, so will nuclear power.

6. All abandoned reactors are radioactive for millennia.

8. Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the Earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.


Reason mentioned Solar power:

Solar power currently supplies .007% of the US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the following reasons:

1. Energy from solar power varies constantly with weather or day/night.

2. Not practical for transportation needs. While a handful of small, experimental, solar-powered vehicles have been built, solar power is unsuited for planes, boats, cars, tanks, etc.

3. Solar cannot be adapted to produce pesticides, fertilizer, or plastics.

4. Solar is susceptible to the effects of global climate change, which is projected to greatly intensify in the decades to come.

5. Estimates are that about 20 percent of US land area would be required to support a solar energy system that would supply less than one-half of our current energy consumption. To develop such a system would require phenomenal level of investment and new infrastructure. This land requirement can be expected to diminish arable (food producing), pasture, and forest lands to some extent, with the most critical loss being arable land.

Reason mentioned Wind power:

Wind power accounts for .007% of US energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the following reasons:

1. As with solar, energy from wind varies greatly with weather, and is not portable or storable like oil and gas.

2. Wind cannot be adapted to produce pesticides, fertilizer or plastics.

3. Like solar, wind is susceptible to the effects of global climate change.

4. Not appropriate for transportation needs.

Despite these limitations, wind power is the most promising of the various oil alternatives. According to a 1993 study done by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, wind could generate about 15% of US energy, if proper investments are made. According to a recent Danish study, wind's EPR could be as high as 50 ? by far the highest of any of the available alternatives. The fact that wind is our most promising alternative indicates that replacing oil is essentially impossible. For instance, in order for wind to be used as hydrogen fuel, the following steps have to be taken:

1. Build the wind farm. This step requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

2. Wait for X number of years while the original energy investment is paid back.

3. Construct an infrastructure through which the wind energy can be converted to hydrogen. This requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

4. Retrofit our current infrastructure to run on this fuel. This requires an enormous investment of oil and raw materials, both of which will become increasingly expensive as oil production drops.

5. Deal with enormous political and industrial resistance at each step.

6. Pray that we can repeat this process enough times before economic obstacles and war completely cripple our ability to do so.


This problem has been around long before this election Reason.