t33
Oct 31st, 2004, 5:42 PM
1000+ and counting are dead. 10000+ and counting are suffering. Who is to blame?
View Full Version : They are never coming home
dutchie
Nov 1st, 2004, 1:32 AM
Why don't you answer that question yourself?
niteflyer
Nov 1st, 2004, 10:45 AM
Unfortunately I believe its only the tip of the iceberg thats gonna come crashing down. Whose to blame..EVERYONE who fills their gas guzzler and wants to keep their high standard of life without looking REAL HARD at the policies that our country takes to make it possible....
PunkRockMaL7
Nov 1st, 2004, 10:51 AM
EVERYONE who fills their gas guzzler and wants to keep their high standard of life
And how do you get to the places you need to go...horse and carriage???
And how do you get to the places you need to go...horse and carriage???
Emerald_Dragon
Nov 1st, 2004, 1:05 PM
>EVERYONE who fills their gas guzzler and wants to keep their high standard of life
>without looking REAL HARD at the policies that our country takes to make it possible....
[i am] GUILTY!
However, now that I know better, am doing my best to consume less. Become less reliant on a car. But well, my actions are minute, relative to what needs to be done. I don't have an answer, just theories on what should be done.
1) Promulgate zero point energy to reduce our nations infrastructure requirements for fossil fuels to power our electricity generation plants. Expand existing power production to include Hydroplants, solar and wind farms, wave-plants, Biomass diesel substitutes to power the farm engines with the corns/wheats they create.
2) Advance mass transit techniques to reduce the need for cars, like most of Europe.
These actions alone, would free up our oil addictions to allow our civilization [edit:oops] to thrive by re-directing our oil consumption for energy purposes, to oil consumption for oil by-products [plastics/polymers, fertilizers/foods].
>without looking REAL HARD at the policies that our country takes to make it possible....
[i am] GUILTY!
However, now that I know better, am doing my best to consume less. Become less reliant on a car. But well, my actions are minute, relative to what needs to be done. I don't have an answer, just theories on what should be done.
1) Promulgate zero point energy to reduce our nations infrastructure requirements for fossil fuels to power our electricity generation plants. Expand existing power production to include Hydroplants, solar and wind farms, wave-plants, Biomass diesel substitutes to power the farm engines with the corns/wheats they create.
2) Advance mass transit techniques to reduce the need for cars, like most of Europe.
These actions alone, would free up our oil addictions to allow our civilization [edit:oops] to thrive by re-directing our oil consumption for energy purposes, to oil consumption for oil by-products [plastics/polymers, fertilizers/foods].
PunkRockMaL7
Nov 1st, 2004, 3:03 PM
The only thing i wonder is...if we know how to make a hydroplant or solar powered whatever...then why is there not more of a push towards it...doesnt seem like anyone is making any changes to the whole gas issue...there is no gas rebellion at all...They do have these new electric cars and thats nice and all but very few people actually own them, and they still use gas....just less of it...I buy gas without even thinking about it because i know that i have to unless i wanna wake up insanely early to make it to work....I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere what would you choose? I know my choice would be driving...its part of being employed
midnightsonblaze
Nov 1st, 2004, 3:17 PM
The only thing i wonder is...if we know how to make a hydroplant or solar powered whatever...then why is there not more of a push towards it...doesnt seem like anyone is making any changes to the whole gas issue...there is no gas rebellion at all...They do have these new electric cars and thats nice and all but very few people actually own them, and they still use gas....just less of it...I buy gas without even thinking about it because i know that i have to unless i wanna wake up insanely early to make it to work....I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere what would you choose? I know my choice would be driving...its part of being employed
>>The only thing i wonder is...if we know how to make a hydroplant or solar powered whatever...then why is there not more of a push towards it.
There's not alot of money to be made with those products that's why...
>>.I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere what would you choose?
It is because people are lazy that's why they would rather drive......there are those things......I think they're called BIKES!
I actually Bike to my store.....it's only about 2 miles away....
I do however use a car on the weekends while my wife, son and I go out
>>The only thing i wonder is...if we know how to make a hydroplant or solar powered whatever...then why is there not more of a push towards it.
There's not alot of money to be made with those products that's why...
>>.I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere what would you choose?
It is because people are lazy that's why they would rather drive......there are those things......I think they're called BIKES!
I actually Bike to my store.....it's only about 2 miles away....
I do however use a car on the weekends while my wife, son and I go out
lotrfan55345
Nov 1st, 2004, 3:55 PM
1) Infinite energy is impossible according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2) Solar&Wind need to run ~10-20 years for a net gain in energy (they need oil to be transported, made, processed)
3) Hydrogen is not a SOURCE of energy but a CARRIER of energy. All carriers are NOT 100% efficient (hydrogen is roughly 42% efficent)
4) We need increase our electricity capacity by 240%, assuming hydrogen is 100% efficient (which its not - we really cant tell exactly how efficient it is)
2) Solar&Wind need to run ~10-20 years for a net gain in energy (they need oil to be transported, made, processed)
3) Hydrogen is not a SOURCE of energy but a CARRIER of energy. All carriers are NOT 100% efficient (hydrogen is roughly 42% efficent)
4) We need increase our electricity capacity by 240%, assuming hydrogen is 100% efficient (which its not - we really cant tell exactly how efficient it is)
DarkAce
Nov 1st, 2004, 4:23 PM
The cornerstone of the next industrial revolution is therefore winning the Oil Endgame. And surprisingly, it will cost less to displace all of the oil that the United States now uses than it will cost to buy that oil. Oil's current market price leaves out its true costs to the economy, national security, and the environment. But even without including these now "externalized" costs, it would still be profitable to displace oil completely over the next few decades. In fact, by 2025, the annual economic benefit of that displacement would be $130 billion gross (or $70 billion net of the displacement's costs). To achieve this does not require a revolution, but merely consolidating and accelerating trends already in place: the amount of oil the economy uses for each dollar of GDP produced, and the fuel efficiency of light vehicles, would need only to improve about three-fifths as quickly as they did in response to previous oil shocks.
Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives for the other half, requires four integrated steps:
Double the efficiency of using oil. The U.S. today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975; with the latest proven efficiency technologies, it can double oil efficiency all over again. The investments needed to save each barrel of oil will cost only $12 (in 2000 $), less than half the officially forecast $26 price of that barrel in the world oil market. The most important enabling technology is ultralight vehicle design. Advanced composite or lightweight-steel materials can nearly double the efficiency of today's popular hybrid-electric cars and light trucks while improving safety and performance. The vehicle's total extra cost is repaid from fuel savings in about three years; the ultralighting is approximately free. Through emerging manufacturing techniques, such vehicles are becoming practical and profitable; the factories to produce them will also be cheaper and smaller.
Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficent light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes. Combined with more efficient buildings and factories, these efficient vehicles can cut the official forecast of oil use by 29% in 2025 and another 23% soon thereafter—52% in all. Enabled by a new industrial cluster focusing on lightweight materials, such as carbon-fiber composites, such advanced-technology vehicles can revitalize these three strategic sectors and create important new industries.
Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy. Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals.
Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil. If desired, the leftover saved natural gas could be used even more profitably and effectively by converting it to hydrogen, displacing most of the remaining oil use—and all of the oil use if modestly augmented by competitive renewable energy.
Link: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1093.php
Saving half the oil America uses, and substituting cheaper alternatives for the other half, requires four integrated steps:
Double the efficiency of using oil. The U.S. today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of oil as it did in 1975; with the latest proven efficiency technologies, it can double oil efficiency all over again. The investments needed to save each barrel of oil will cost only $12 (in 2000 $), less than half the officially forecast $26 price of that barrel in the world oil market. The most important enabling technology is ultralight vehicle design. Advanced composite or lightweight-steel materials can nearly double the efficiency of today's popular hybrid-electric cars and light trucks while improving safety and performance. The vehicle's total extra cost is repaid from fuel savings in about three years; the ultralighting is approximately free. Through emerging manufacturing techniques, such vehicles are becoming practical and profitable; the factories to produce them will also be cheaper and smaller.
Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficent light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes. Combined with more efficient buildings and factories, these efficient vehicles can cut the official forecast of oil use by 29% in 2025 and another 23% soon thereafter—52% in all. Enabled by a new industrial cluster focusing on lightweight materials, such as carbon-fiber composites, such advanced-technology vehicles can revitalize these three strategic sectors and create important new industries.
Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy. Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals.
Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil. If desired, the leftover saved natural gas could be used even more profitably and effectively by converting it to hydrogen, displacing most of the remaining oil use—and all of the oil use if modestly augmented by competitive renewable energy.
Link: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1093.php
Emerald_Dragon
Nov 1st, 2004, 4:40 PM
>if we know how to make a hydroplant or solar powered whatever...
>then why is there not more of a push towards it
Money. Capitalism. Would you do anything if it wasn't profitable?
Would you maintain your profitability if you allowed substitutes to enter the market?
As it is, IMO, the oil barons have prevented the introduction of subways into major midwest cities citing it "too expensive". They're too busy overcharging states for electricity and getting away with it [reference CA and Enron] by funding celebrities to the reins of government to pardon their transgressions [by dropping legal suites once elected].
"the short term costs are too high".
Shortsighted to/for the benefit of those in/with power.
Solar power is expensive, but will pay for itself in years. Compared to coal and oil powered electric companies which have been running since the 40/50's providing power.
We've got quite a few nuclear powerplants too. All of Scotland's electricity is powered by nuclear plants [3?]. But less than 5%(?) of the U.S. electricity supply is nuclear powered, and we have like what, 50+ nuclear plants?
Oil is our life, our civilization. And we've recently, allegedly, fired up some obsolete
coal power plants to meet rising demand, if what i'm reading, is true.
Anyways, if energy were cheaply supplied, the providers would have to charge appropriately. OTOH, if it were costly, they'd get to raise their rates to maintain profitability.
>doesnt seem like anyone is making any changes to the whole gas issue...
>there is no gas rebellion at all
ever hear of the analogy of the frog in a gradually simmering pot?
it won't notice that its being cooked?
we may not be French, but we may earn that moniker yet.
we've bought it, what's been marketed to us over the years.
To have a car, is freedom.
To drive is exhilarating.
All the chicks dig a sweet speedster.
The whole family can travel in it.
We can go off-roading.
Its the heartbeat of America.
How can you [anyone] survive without a car in this country? you can't?
nothing is close, everything is built where you're not living and there are no subways that go there.
>....I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....
its because people are too worried about their lives to spend more than a second pondering it. kids, groceries, rent, insurance, you name it. its our lifestyle, our mindset, our priorities. we consume without thinking, we expect convenience, and won't settle for less.
>honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere
>what would you choose?
i walk to work. but that's only because i chose to live close enough to it, to do so.
however, i must drive to buy groceries or go out.
>then why is there not more of a push towards it
Money. Capitalism. Would you do anything if it wasn't profitable?
Would you maintain your profitability if you allowed substitutes to enter the market?
As it is, IMO, the oil barons have prevented the introduction of subways into major midwest cities citing it "too expensive". They're too busy overcharging states for electricity and getting away with it [reference CA and Enron] by funding celebrities to the reins of government to pardon their transgressions [by dropping legal suites once elected].
"the short term costs are too high".
Shortsighted to/for the benefit of those in/with power.
Solar power is expensive, but will pay for itself in years. Compared to coal and oil powered electric companies which have been running since the 40/50's providing power.
We've got quite a few nuclear powerplants too. All of Scotland's electricity is powered by nuclear plants [3?]. But less than 5%(?) of the U.S. electricity supply is nuclear powered, and we have like what, 50+ nuclear plants?
Oil is our life, our civilization. And we've recently, allegedly, fired up some obsolete
coal power plants to meet rising demand, if what i'm reading, is true.
Anyways, if energy were cheaply supplied, the providers would have to charge appropriately. OTOH, if it were costly, they'd get to raise their rates to maintain profitability.
>doesnt seem like anyone is making any changes to the whole gas issue...
>there is no gas rebellion at all
ever hear of the analogy of the frog in a gradually simmering pot?
it won't notice that its being cooked?
we may not be French, but we may earn that moniker yet.
we've bought it, what's been marketed to us over the years.
To have a car, is freedom.
To drive is exhilarating.
All the chicks dig a sweet speedster.
The whole family can travel in it.
We can go off-roading.
Its the heartbeat of America.
How can you [anyone] survive without a car in this country? you can't?
nothing is close, everything is built where you're not living and there are no subways that go there.
>....I dont think that its because people are lazy, its just because its there....
its because people are too worried about their lives to spend more than a second pondering it. kids, groceries, rent, insurance, you name it. its our lifestyle, our mindset, our priorities. we consume without thinking, we expect convenience, and won't settle for less.
>honestly if you had the choice to walk everywhere or drive everywhere
>what would you choose?
i walk to work. but that's only because i chose to live close enough to it, to do so.
however, i must drive to buy groceries or go out.
lotrfan55345
Nov 1st, 2004, 7:41 PM
Profitable to displace oil completely over the next few decades. In fact, by 2025, the annual economic benefit of that displacement would be $130 billion gross (or $70 billion net of the displacement's costs). .
Well, even if a said alternative is economiclly viable, it doesn't matter, since it will probably not have a better Energy Retern on Investment (EROI) than oil.. since energy is what we are running out of.
Advanced composite or lightweight-steel materials can nearly double the efficiency of today's popular hybrid-electric cars and light trucks while improving safety and performance. The vehicle's total extra cost is repaid from fuel savings in about three years; the ultralighting is approximately free. Through emerging manufacturing techniques, such vehicles are becoming practical and profitable; the factories to produce them will also be cheaper and smaller.
Well, it seems this will not be enough investments for this kind of mass-retrofiting of the "systems" as the economy will not be favorable for this kind of investments. This is discussed in the thread: This Thread (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=3388) and also lightly in the "end of industrialized civilization" thread.
Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficent light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes. Combined with more efficient buildings and factories, these efficient vehicles can cut the official forecast of oil use by 29% in 2025 and another 23% soon thereafter—52% in all. Enabled by a new industrial cluster focusing on lightweight materials, such as carbon-fiber composites, such advanced-technology vehicles can revitalize these three strategic sectors and create important new industries.
Again, see the above - and who has the political will to do this again? George W Bush? For somereason, I only see the green party having the political will to do this and they dont seem to have a real great chance of getting elected.
Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy.
1st of all – ethanol is only 2/3 dense as gasoline. I don't see this as a huge breakthrough. The turkey parts plant could do something similar: convert unused parts of crops to oil. Heck, they can go one better, and convert sewage sludge and household garbage into oil.
But I see this more as a recycling effort than a solution. Generally, the non-edible parts of food crops aren't wasted. They are used to make other products, or turned into fertilizer.
The problem with any crop is that it takes oil to grow. And I'm not just talking tractors and transportation. Even algae and switchgrass need nitrogen, which we get mostly from petroleum. And they will probably need pesticides, too. Switchgrass is a low-maintenance plant now, because we don't grow much of it. Well, corn, wheat, rice, etc., are all low maintenance crops in the wild, too. What makes them high-maintenance is growing them in monoculture. When you have a monoculture - huge fields of the same crop - you create a paradise for pests of that crops. Their numbers explode, and you end having to use chemicals to control them.
It's really easy to grow, say, corn in your backyard if you don't live in corn country. In NY, or Maryland, you can grow a nice stand of corn without pesticides. But try this in a rural area of Iowa, and your corn plants will be eaten alive. Because of the surrounding corn fields, you can't grow corn in your backyard without pesticides.
I'm not saying we should not pursue this and other technologies. (One I find particularly promising: a new method of sewage treatment that removes the heavy metals that current methods leave. Heavy metal concentration is the reason we don't use human waste to fertilize crops.) But it's not the answer. The thermodynamics are against us. And investing heavily in high-tech solutions might be a mistake, if energy scarcity is going to force us to a simpler lifestyle.
Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals.
Last part from "Lenan" from the PO forums since I'm too lazy to make my own rebuttal.
Well, even if a said alternative is economiclly viable, it doesn't matter, since it will probably not have a better Energy Retern on Investment (EROI) than oil.. since energy is what we are running out of.
Advanced composite or lightweight-steel materials can nearly double the efficiency of today's popular hybrid-electric cars and light trucks while improving safety and performance. The vehicle's total extra cost is repaid from fuel savings in about three years; the ultralighting is approximately free. Through emerging manufacturing techniques, such vehicles are becoming practical and profitable; the factories to produce them will also be cheaper and smaller.
Well, it seems this will not be enough investments for this kind of mass-retrofiting of the "systems" as the economy will not be favorable for this kind of investments. This is discussed in the thread: This Thread (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=3388) and also lightly in the "end of industrialized civilization" thread.
Apply creative business models and public policies to speed the profitable adoption of superefficent light vehicles, heavy trucks, and airplanes. Combined with more efficient buildings and factories, these efficient vehicles can cut the official forecast of oil use by 29% in 2025 and another 23% soon thereafter—52% in all. Enabled by a new industrial cluster focusing on lightweight materials, such as carbon-fiber composites, such advanced-technology vehicles can revitalize these three strategic sectors and create important new industries.
Again, see the above - and who has the political will to do this again? George W Bush? For somereason, I only see the green party having the political will to do this and they dont seem to have a real great chance of getting elected.
Provide another one-fourth of U.S. oil needs by a major domestic biofuels industry. Recent advances in biotechnology and cellulose-to-ethanol conversion can double previous techniques' yield, yet cost less in both capital and energy.
1st of all – ethanol is only 2/3 dense as gasoline. I don't see this as a huge breakthrough. The turkey parts plant could do something similar: convert unused parts of crops to oil. Heck, they can go one better, and convert sewage sludge and household garbage into oil.
But I see this more as a recycling effort than a solution. Generally, the non-edible parts of food crops aren't wasted. They are used to make other products, or turned into fertilizer.
The problem with any crop is that it takes oil to grow. And I'm not just talking tractors and transportation. Even algae and switchgrass need nitrogen, which we get mostly from petroleum. And they will probably need pesticides, too. Switchgrass is a low-maintenance plant now, because we don't grow much of it. Well, corn, wheat, rice, etc., are all low maintenance crops in the wild, too. What makes them high-maintenance is growing them in monoculture. When you have a monoculture - huge fields of the same crop - you create a paradise for pests of that crops. Their numbers explode, and you end having to use chemicals to control them.
It's really easy to grow, say, corn in your backyard if you don't live in corn country. In NY, or Maryland, you can grow a nice stand of corn without pesticides. But try this in a rural area of Iowa, and your corn plants will be eaten alive. Because of the surrounding corn fields, you can't grow corn in your backyard without pesticides.
I'm not saying we should not pursue this and other technologies. (One I find particularly promising: a new method of sewage treatment that removes the heavy metals that current methods leave. Heavy metal concentration is the reason we don't use human waste to fertilize crops.) But it's not the answer. The thermodynamics are against us. And investing heavily in high-tech solutions might be a mistake, if energy scarcity is going to force us to a simpler lifestyle.
Replacing fossil-fuel hydrocarbons with plant-derived carbohydrates will strengthen rural America, boost net farm income by tens of billions of dollars a year, and create more than 750,000 new jobs. Convergence between the energy, chemical, and agricultural value chains will also let versatile new classes of biomaterials replace petrochemicals.
Last part from "Lenan" from the PO forums since I'm too lazy to make my own rebuttal.
lotrfan55345
Nov 1st, 2004, 7:42 PM
Use well established, highly profitable efficiency techniques to save half the projected 2025 use of natural gas, making it again abundant and affordable, then substitute part of the saved gas for oil. If desired, the leftover saved natural gas could be used even more profitably and effectively by converting it to hydrogen, displacing most of the remaining oil use—and all of the oil use if modestly augmented by competitive renewable energy.
More than 275 North American gas-fired electrical generation plants are planned to begin operations through 2006, up from 158 a year ago, which would increase gas consumption by more than 8.5 tcf!
Unlike oil, natural gas cannot easily be shipped by sea. It must be liquefied prior to shipment, and then shipped in specially designed refrigerated ships destined for specially equipped ports, and then re-gasified for distribution -- at an estimated 15 to 30 percent energy loss. Moreover, natural gas cannot be easily stored like oil or coal.
Campbell says that gas production is better described as a "plateau" followed by a "cliff" due to the high mobility and recovery of gas. Under declining pressure, oil declines slowly as it moves through the porespace of the rocks, but the decline of gas is a cliff -- not a slope. The gas market gives no warning of the cliff because it is no more expensive to produce the last cubic foot than the first. North American production is at or near (< 10 years) its "cliff" now:
"North American natural gas has no excess capacity. It disappeared several years ago. What we do have is extremely aggressive decline rates in almost every key production basin making it harder each season to keep current production flat.
"The electricity business has also run out of almost all existing generating capacity, whether this capacity is a coal-fired plant, a nuclear plant or a dam. The electricity business has already responded to this shortage. Orders for a massive number of natural gas-fired plants have already been placed. But these new gas plants require an unbelievable amount of natural gas. [The] supply is simply not there." [ ENERGY IN THE NEW ECONOMY: The Limits to Growth, Matt Simmons; http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research/default.asp?viewnews=true&newstype=1]
When Canada signed NAFTA, it ceded total control of its oil and gas reserves. Canada currently makes up about 13% of the USA gas supply. Canada is running out of gas too:
"Outwardly the production projections of the NEB, EUB and GESI are confusing and even contradictory. But they really carry the same message: the limits of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) are being recognized. We could gradually increase consumption of the basin's reserves over the next decade and accept sharply falling supply thereafter (the NEB result). We can rapidly increase consumption through drilling quick, short lived deliverability wells and live with an early rapid supply decline (the EUB result). Or, we could redirect more activity to larger reserve plays that require greater lead times and thereby accept an earlier, but gradual supply decline (the GESI result)." http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/NatGasCan/opipaper.pdf
Mexican gas production reached a plateau in 1998 and has had a downward slope of around 2% ever since. http://dieoff.com/mexgas.gif.
"Energy Information Administration figures showed that volumes coming to the US from Mexico fell from a total of more than 54 bcf in 1999 to just 4.71 bcf for the first 4 months of 2000 and then to nothing. Mexican domestic demand for gas no longer allowed for exports" http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=17910217&ID=cnniw&scategory=Energy.
Campbell says it is not practical to make up the North American shortfall in gas by shipping it in from the Middle East (shortage of LNG facilities, tankers, and energy loss). However, the construction of a new gas line to Alaska and the Canadian arctic where there probably are large untapped deposits could temporarily mitigate the North American gas cliff.
Energy analyst Stephen B Andrews recently wrote:
"According to the Oil & Gas Journal (8/21/00), there were 114 existing LNG tankers on January 2000. Only 8 vessels were available for spot-market trade...that is, weren't locked in to long-term trading agreements.
"The 28 LNG tankers now on order and being built will increase the LNG fleet's capacity by close to 1/3. An additional 52 vessels would be required between 2005 and 2010. Combined, the total increase would be an 87% rise in LNG shipping capacity. Most of those on order today are locked into long-term trading contracts.
"Today, the world trade in LNG is apparently about 125 billion cubic meters -- which would make it around 5% of world natural gas consumption (using BP's Statistical Review of World Energy for the total sum). LNG trade is forecast to increase by 35% by 2005. If all of that increase were directed to North America, it wouldn't come close to covering our projected increased consumption.
"As luck would have it, Asia has already spoken for that upcoming increase in new LNG. 'The potential for LNG imports in India and China is enormous,' wrote O&GJ.
"In the face of projected rapidly growing demand for natural gas in the electricity generation sector, plus relatively flat production in recent times and on the near-term horizon, I wouldn't count on LNG saving North America's bacon."
On October 17, 2000 (Reuters), a top BP Amoco official admitted that there was a "dire need" for gas from both Alaska and northern Canada. Forecasts show gas demand could outstrip supplies from traditional sources by as much as 4 billion cubic feet a day within a decade! -- http://dieoff.com/nagas.htm -- http://dieoff.com/pp.htm.
FROM: http://dieoff.com/synopsis.htm
Oh, and here is Matt Simmons - Bush/Cheney energy advisor's view about natural gas: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/ASPO2004.pdf
More than 275 North American gas-fired electrical generation plants are planned to begin operations through 2006, up from 158 a year ago, which would increase gas consumption by more than 8.5 tcf!
Unlike oil, natural gas cannot easily be shipped by sea. It must be liquefied prior to shipment, and then shipped in specially designed refrigerated ships destined for specially equipped ports, and then re-gasified for distribution -- at an estimated 15 to 30 percent energy loss. Moreover, natural gas cannot be easily stored like oil or coal.
Campbell says that gas production is better described as a "plateau" followed by a "cliff" due to the high mobility and recovery of gas. Under declining pressure, oil declines slowly as it moves through the porespace of the rocks, but the decline of gas is a cliff -- not a slope. The gas market gives no warning of the cliff because it is no more expensive to produce the last cubic foot than the first. North American production is at or near (< 10 years) its "cliff" now:
"North American natural gas has no excess capacity. It disappeared several years ago. What we do have is extremely aggressive decline rates in almost every key production basin making it harder each season to keep current production flat.
"The electricity business has also run out of almost all existing generating capacity, whether this capacity is a coal-fired plant, a nuclear plant or a dam. The electricity business has already responded to this shortage. Orders for a massive number of natural gas-fired plants have already been placed. But these new gas plants require an unbelievable amount of natural gas. [The] supply is simply not there." [ ENERGY IN THE NEW ECONOMY: The Limits to Growth, Matt Simmons; http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/research/default.asp?viewnews=true&newstype=1]
When Canada signed NAFTA, it ceded total control of its oil and gas reserves. Canada currently makes up about 13% of the USA gas supply. Canada is running out of gas too:
"Outwardly the production projections of the NEB, EUB and GESI are confusing and even contradictory. But they really carry the same message: the limits of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) are being recognized. We could gradually increase consumption of the basin's reserves over the next decade and accept sharply falling supply thereafter (the NEB result). We can rapidly increase consumption through drilling quick, short lived deliverability wells and live with an early rapid supply decline (the EUB result). Or, we could redirect more activity to larger reserve plays that require greater lead times and thereby accept an earlier, but gradual supply decline (the GESI result)." http://tabla.geo.ucalgary.ca/NatGasCan/opipaper.pdf
Mexican gas production reached a plateau in 1998 and has had a downward slope of around 2% ever since. http://dieoff.com/mexgas.gif.
"Energy Information Administration figures showed that volumes coming to the US from Mexico fell from a total of more than 54 bcf in 1999 to just 4.71 bcf for the first 4 months of 2000 and then to nothing. Mexican domestic demand for gas no longer allowed for exports" http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=17910217&ID=cnniw&scategory=Energy.
Campbell says it is not practical to make up the North American shortfall in gas by shipping it in from the Middle East (shortage of LNG facilities, tankers, and energy loss). However, the construction of a new gas line to Alaska and the Canadian arctic where there probably are large untapped deposits could temporarily mitigate the North American gas cliff.
Energy analyst Stephen B Andrews recently wrote:
"According to the Oil & Gas Journal (8/21/00), there were 114 existing LNG tankers on January 2000. Only 8 vessels were available for spot-market trade...that is, weren't locked in to long-term trading agreements.
"The 28 LNG tankers now on order and being built will increase the LNG fleet's capacity by close to 1/3. An additional 52 vessels would be required between 2005 and 2010. Combined, the total increase would be an 87% rise in LNG shipping capacity. Most of those on order today are locked into long-term trading contracts.
"Today, the world trade in LNG is apparently about 125 billion cubic meters -- which would make it around 5% of world natural gas consumption (using BP's Statistical Review of World Energy for the total sum). LNG trade is forecast to increase by 35% by 2005. If all of that increase were directed to North America, it wouldn't come close to covering our projected increased consumption.
"As luck would have it, Asia has already spoken for that upcoming increase in new LNG. 'The potential for LNG imports in India and China is enormous,' wrote O&GJ.
"In the face of projected rapidly growing demand for natural gas in the electricity generation sector, plus relatively flat production in recent times and on the near-term horizon, I wouldn't count on LNG saving North America's bacon."
On October 17, 2000 (Reuters), a top BP Amoco official admitted that there was a "dire need" for gas from both Alaska and northern Canada. Forecasts show gas demand could outstrip supplies from traditional sources by as much as 4 billion cubic feet a day within a decade! -- http://dieoff.com/nagas.htm -- http://dieoff.com/pp.htm.
FROM: http://dieoff.com/synopsis.htm
Oh, and here is Matt Simmons - Bush/Cheney energy advisor's view about natural gas: http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/ASPO2004.pdf
Defiant Noquisi
Nov 2nd, 2004, 11:17 PM
Damn MD, I almost had to grab a hanky after reading that post.
In the American Indian culture, to die a warrior is the highest honor one can ever attain. It matters not the reasons why a Chief and his/her community agreed that war was inevitable.
I do not agree with this war. The politics and posturing that led to it embarass me. However, I will not condemn the soldiers and their families because of it (except in the case of stupid crap like Abu Ghraib). No one should. Blame Bush, blame the "insurgents", blame oil, blame whoever and whatever. The fault lies not with the soldiers but with the human condition of the world.
In the American Indian culture, to die a warrior is the highest honor one can ever attain. It matters not the reasons why a Chief and his/her community agreed that war was inevitable.
I do not agree with this war. The politics and posturing that led to it embarass me. However, I will not condemn the soldiers and their families because of it (except in the case of stupid crap like Abu Ghraib). No one should. Blame Bush, blame the "insurgents", blame oil, blame whoever and whatever. The fault lies not with the soldiers but with the human condition of the world.
stewey
Nov 3rd, 2004, 5:39 PM
What pisses me off, is people calling the foreign insurgents "freedom fighters".
The foreigners kill Iraqi people who cooperate with the Americans. Who would know what one wants more, the foreigner or the Iraqi person?
"WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT MORE THAN YOU, YOU DO NOT WANT WHAT WE WANT, SO DIE!"
The foreigners kill Iraqi people who cooperate with the Americans. Who would know what one wants more, the foreigner or the Iraqi person?
"WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT MORE THAN YOU, YOU DO NOT WANT WHAT WE WANT, SO DIE!"
Assassin X
Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:29 PM
1000+ and counting are dead. 10000+ and counting are suffering. Who is to blame?
IVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS!!! THE DEATH TOLL FROM THE WAR IS BARLEY BAD AT ALL.... STOP WHINING!!!!!!!!!!
IVE BEEN saying it over and over and over and over!!!! That death tool in the war is NOTHING....ZERO....ZILTCH....NOTTA!!!! WE have the most trained army in the world not a bunch of people with AK-47S that run in the streets and shoot from their hips at anything that moves!
Weve lost WAYYYYYYY beyond a small amount of troops. This amount so acceptable theres no reason to even complain. Look at any war at any time. This amount is fine. People are just looking for an excuse to blame someone.
People keep complaining but dont realize WE ARE THE BEST ARMY, THIS IS THE SMALLEST LOSS, ARE TROOPS ARE WELL TRAINED! STOP WHINING!!!
BTW go here:
http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=3461
IVE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS!!! THE DEATH TOLL FROM THE WAR IS BARLEY BAD AT ALL.... STOP WHINING!!!!!!!!!!
IVE BEEN saying it over and over and over and over!!!! That death tool in the war is NOTHING....ZERO....ZILTCH....NOTTA!!!! WE have the most trained army in the world not a bunch of people with AK-47S that run in the streets and shoot from their hips at anything that moves!
Weve lost WAYYYYYYY beyond a small amount of troops. This amount so acceptable theres no reason to even complain. Look at any war at any time. This amount is fine. People are just looking for an excuse to blame someone.
People keep complaining but dont realize WE ARE THE BEST ARMY, THIS IS THE SMALLEST LOSS, ARE TROOPS ARE WELL TRAINED! STOP WHINING!!!
BTW go here:
http://forums.armageddononline.org/showthread.php?t=3461
Emerald_Dragon
Nov 4th, 2004, 5:08 PM
our highly trained troops did not need to die in Iraq. They could have caught OBL.
the ones that have died in Iraq, died for false glory. no WMDs. no Al-Qaeda. but there's definitely terrorists there, now. are they limited by borders? OH NO! They're in Iran, in Syria, Lebanon, OMG Russia! Dammit, they moved to CHINA, oh yeah, while we're there, we should take out North Korea. :grin American Imperialism. How do you think WWII Germany started?
but looking at it from a more strategic POV, its not too bad. One deceased, highly trained US soldier for every 10 dead iraqis.
How many Iraqis are there? :jamn: "America!, America!, FUCK YEAH!"
the ones that have died in Iraq, died for false glory. no WMDs. no Al-Qaeda. but there's definitely terrorists there, now. are they limited by borders? OH NO! They're in Iran, in Syria, Lebanon, OMG Russia! Dammit, they moved to CHINA, oh yeah, while we're there, we should take out North Korea. :grin American Imperialism. How do you think WWII Germany started?
but looking at it from a more strategic POV, its not too bad. One deceased, highly trained US soldier for every 10 dead iraqis.
How many Iraqis are there? :jamn: "America!, America!, FUCK YEAH!"
DontBeAfraid
Nov 5th, 2004, 9:44 AM
This amount so acceptable theres no reason to even complain.
You dont know any of the dead do you?
You dont know any of the dead do you?
VegasRonin
Nov 6th, 2004, 9:19 PM
I said this a ways back. I believe Iraq is a staging point for another coming conflict. Its also a training ground to get the forces bloodied a lil' bit, and for them to work out the kinks. Iran, China, and N. Korea; The latter 2 most assuredly. Our armed forces were running thin on actual combat vets but not any longer. They now have confidence that their training and equipment is reliable. They're ready for a bigger dog now. Rest assured, Iraq could be turned into a smoldering wasteland, without the use of nukes, if our military wanted to do it that way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.