The End of Industrialized Civilization As We Know It [Archive]

furry

Feb 24th, 2003, 10:01 AM

I agree with armageddononline about Bush and Powell. I think Powell has done a good job of keeping the rest of the administration from doing anything rash. But I get the feeling he is the sole voice in that respect.

I will answer the point a brought up about the water allocations in Israel as best I can, but I'm really not too sure of my facts. About a year ago I heard on a news broad cast that the ratio for water between the Israelis and the Palestinians is 7:1. However, I can't remember if it is each Israeli gets 7 to each Palestinian 1 (which would be obscene enough) or if the whole of Israel get the 7 to Palestinians 1, which would send the ratio of person to person much higher. Is there anyone out there who knows? I'm curious.

sunev-please don't get me wrong, I'm no dove. I agree that the world will be a better place without Saddam. I also agree with you that given the resources he would be expansionist. But I don't believe he has the resources to be the threat that Bush and Blair seem to think he is. The west (mostly the U.S.) has been actively containing him for over a decade. His funds have been severely limited because of this. Yes, Iraq is allowed to sell oil for humanitarian reasons, and yes he is diverting that to his weapons research. I don't think anyone was surprised by the evidence of weapons factories that Powell showed at the U.N., but how good could the factories be given the limited resources, and the fact that they are in trucks that are constantly being shuffled around. What Powell did prove is that we can track these factories. Instead of a invading, let's tighten the containment and track down those trucks and destroy them. Innocents will be killed, but that number has got to be less then invasion. If you go back to my post at beginning of this thread, I can also argue that if we contain Saddam a couple of decades more, oil will be less important and Saddam will have even less resources. I know that sounds like along time to continue an embargo, to that I have a one word response - Cuba.

Another thing that bothered me was the evidence that Powell presented about Iraq's involvement with al-qidda. This evidence was laughable at best, and didn't prove anything.

I think that this invasion is going to be very costly both economically, and diplomatically. In otherwords, I think Bush is squandering a lot of resources based on his own brand of paranoia and a family Vedanta. What I want to see happen is we put the resources that I going into the coming invasion back into the War Against Terrorism.

By the way, someone pointed out to me that not only did the U.S. install Saddam into power, but that we used the C.I.A. to do it and at that time the Acting Director of the C.I.A. was non-other then George H.W. Bush. "W's" father. Can anyone confirm this for me?

lotrfan55345

Mar 8th, 2004, 8:09 PM

Upcoming Oil Crisis:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Home.html

Upcoming Natural Gas crisis:

http://www.planetforlife.com/gasroot.htm

(Gas crisis may only affect the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, Taiwan and S. Korea)

Bigsky, please post you're wonderful and optimistic comments again :)

lotrfan55345

Mar 9th, 2004, 2:49 PM

My 50 year solution:

Now: Tax oil products more. DO NOT give out $20,000 tax breaks to SUV driver. Make the military give up their Tesla technology and begin to implement it. Stop all military expeditions. Conserve like there is no tommorow. Mass transit funding increased 50%. Encourage people to learn growing their own food.

5 years: People start to grow their own food because of increasing prices. Do not use Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil (
ANWR), save it for a later time. Tesla is now providing 20% of our electricity. Start making prototypes of cars that use hydrogen batteries (Hydrogen is popular in laptops in Japan). Try to conserve as much gas as you can. All cars made will be very fuel-efficient

10 years: Tesla is now accountable for 50% of our electricity needs. Start implementing "recharge stations" for the hydrogen-battery powered cars. The filst hydrogen-battery powerd cars are sold. Most of the oil will be used for ramaning cars, plastics, fertelizers , e.t.c

15 years: Tesla now fully implimented, 50% of transport now hydrogen powered.

30years: 80% of transit hydrogen powered, ANWR oil begins to be exploited for all remaining oil-based products

50years: We find an alternative to plastics and oil-based medicine. We are now beyond petrolium.

(Note, this does not include the Natural Gas crisis. )

Chris4334

Mar 9th, 2004, 2:54 PM

Oil companies are sitting on dozens of promising patents for clean technology, ensuring there is no competition from outside their dirty niche.

lotrfan55345

Mar 9th, 2004, 3:16 PM

As explained in the website, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR OIL. Hydrogen STORES electricity, Nuclear Fusion is still being reaserched on and the military will not want to give up their TESLA technology

dutchie

Mar 9th, 2004, 4:26 PM

As explained in the website, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FOR OIL. Hydrogen STORES electricity, Nuclear Fusion is still being reaserched on and the military will not want to give up their TESLA technology
BS! How about the already fast spreading fuel cell?!? There will be a safe method of storing hydrogen. It's cheap, there's plenty of it. It WILL become the new carfuel, I'm sure of it!

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 9th, 2004, 4:32 PM

Agreed. Hydrogen cars are available. But the current administration will not sign the bill to setup the infrastructure for the 2004 model hydrogen cars ready for sale. The plans have been delayed for another 10 years or so.

lotrfan55345

Mar 9th, 2004, 5:07 PM

Hydrogen STORES electricity/energy , not produce it! In Iceland, they have hydrogen cars and infastructure, the old gas places are now recharging stations. Hydrogen is a very long lasting battery, not an energy producing source. (It is starting to be popular in Japan, using it in cellphones, PDA's and laptops. A laptop can now last one week straight w/o reacharging!)

Also, how are we going to replace the millions (if not billions) of cars, trucks, tractors, harvesters, lawn mowers and other thingees using the internal compustable engine in 5~20 years. Bigsky even thinks it already happening now! (Atleast in the Mtns of SE Kentucky)

Also, how about PLASTICS, FERTILIZERS and MEDICINES that require oil. Even if hydrogen miraculously solves all of our problems, what will we do to make these? I once heard that 20% of oil goes towards fertilizer use, another 20% towards plastics and then to top is off 5% towards medicines!

Also, not to mention the NATURAL GAS crisis. Natrual Gas heats my home, and millions more and is required for pestisides and some fertilizers!

lotrfan55345

Mar 9th, 2004, 5:37 PM

Here is what Bisky said on the other forum.

Iotrfan,
Good to see you here, kiddo. For your age, I am very impressed with your level of concern on this issue. In the time that our little site's been down, hope all is well with you!
I read the text in its' entirety, will say for the record 95% of what I had read I agree with "IN TOTAL". That which I would argue to the converse does not detract from the overall 'body' of the text/gravity of the issue that BEGS for our attention. What am I saying? Simply this; We are ALREADY THERE.
Yes. There is no arguement about it. Scared? You should be, though like the actions you outline that need to be taken, SCARED ENOUGH TO ACT!
As you are already aware, I live in the mountains of Southeastern Kentucky. As of this very moment/Gasoline and diesel fuels in this area are at all-time-highs, the news for the future isn't good; Reliable sources have put the price of petrol @ $2.25-$2.50 range per gallon by midsummer/worst case has it in the $2.75-$3.00 range. Diesel Fuel averages 5-7 cents higher per gallon than gasoline here.
I know PERSONALLY some of those that contract as 'private' haulers/semi-truck drivers, (one of which is my father-in-law) he's devastated by this; can no-longer remain profitable to stay in business, @ the age of 59, he is going into early retirement. Many of his friends will try to stick-it-out as long as possible (until) unfortunately, they'll have no-choice but to close-up shop as well. Why is this happening? Simple. Read the text about "Oil-Reserves" and you'll know why. Right now, they are DANGEROUSLY LOW, Indeed, lower that they have been in decades. . .What effect will this have on the "Economy?" Well, If you know ANYTHING about how interconnected "OIL" is to every facet of American manufacturing/production capabilities, you would know; WE ARE LOOKING AT THE POSSIBILITY OF TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE BY THIS OCTOBER,(or) AT THE VERY LEAST the worst downturn in the 'economy' since the "Great Depression," Remember who said it.
I'll give you a quick fact; Being that it is that I live where I do, (in SouthEastern Ky.) our area is provided electric power by AEP (American Electric Power). In a 3-day period, it takes approximately 360-400 metric-tons of coal to produce energy for a(n) area that covers S.E. Ky. proper/and also parts of West Virginia. This "Coal" is hauled in with the use of "Coal-Trucks" that run on, (you guessed it) Diesel Fuel. Think for a minute, WHAT is this going to do to the price of "Electricity" per killowatt hour? Do the Math. Anybody out there think for a minute that "American Electric" is going to "eat" their profits? I think not. The price of this will be passed on to the consumer through billing, The price of this will be passed on to the consumer ALSO in everything that this "consumer" should purchase; (think ALSO about all the items in your dwelling made of "plastic" now, where do you think "Plastic" comes from? O-I-L.) What does this spell? T-R-O-U-B-L-E, in a BIG way/ (especially when one considers how strained the economy is already). . . Now why isn't this being reported? Refer to the "text" yet again. The "issue" (as it were) is in "Ignoreland". . . .
Until which time it comes back to bite us in the ass.
Hold on. It gets rough from here.

Joe (Bigsky770)

Bigsky770

Mar 10th, 2004, 4:24 PM

Here is what Bisky said on the other forum.
Okay, Joe predicts/LISTEN CAREFULLY!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Yes/There was a 'reason' for the "Patriot Acts," though strangely enough, You will find that it WILL NOT BE A "Republican" that will enforce them to the limit; Too dangerous at this time; (pre-election)
2. Osama Bin Ladin WILL BE CAPTURED just weeks before the election/They KNOW "where" he is AT THIS VERY MOMENT; "Timing" for the "Election" is EVERYTHING here.
3. This act will be done in an attempt to save George Bush. In the months ahead, His 'popularity' will continue its' descent; The CAUSES will be;

1. The "War" with Iraq, the continuing losses there, ALSO the failure to implement a viable alternative to the 'policing' by our troops;

2. Continuing weakness in jobs creation/growth; (already Kerry is capitalizing on these weaknesses)

3. Unemployment rate continuing upward at an accelerated rate.

4. Even with the latest cancellation by the "Bush" Administration (prior to the posting of this) of two major military contracts em placed by the previous "Clinton" Administration (one of which was a military contract for the Comanche Helicopter/weapons platform), costs of this "war" and our need to fund it will continue uncontrolled/also adding to the Nat'l Debt.

5. Military reserves of fuel will continue to be earmarked from consumer supply causing hyper-inflation at the pumps; Would YOU elect a president when you're paying $2.89 per gallon of gas? Look for possibility of 'rationing' here. . . .

6. Inflation will spiral out-of-control; Basic necessities will triple/quadruple in price; this due to Hyper-Inflation.

7. Why "October?" classic cycle for the stock-market;
This is when the most volatile activity within it occurs;
though there WILL be hints to the impending doom just before; Look for prominent 'Market Analysts' to either be at a loss to explain projected growth estimates for the future, and also SOME of which who were previously optimistic become suddenly taciturn.

8. This will undoubtedly win it for Kerry. This has all been pre-planned. He will ALSO be the one that WILL enforce to the limit the "Patriot" acts in ways you could not imagine @ this time. . . .

9. In closing I will also say this; There are whispers at this moment that "Kerry" should release his FBI files; One of two outcomes to this; either the issue will be conveniently "side-stepped" (or) the files will be released and NOTHING will be found (do not be surprised if MUCH is deleted) (or) blacked-out. . .

You don't think KERRY'S the REAL THREAT? wait 'till post elections. . . .

Joe (Bigsky770)

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 10th, 2004, 4:44 PM

Joe,

you have been busy lately. i'm in agreement and advising those around me, echoing your statements. i've even voted for Dean in the primaries. we could be in for a world of hurt Kerry or Bush, we the people, are screwed.

lotrfan55345

Mar 10th, 2004, 5:32 PM

Joe, you have been busy lately

Am I missing something?

/nosey 12-year old (sorry)

Bigsky770

Mar 10th, 2004, 5:32 PM

- - -Though there may be many who disagree with me (in part or total) about this, this is what I really believe will occur SHOULD fuel prices reach the predicted amounts I've heard mentioned. Emerald, You'll never know how good it is to see your name pop-up again. . . God, I MISSED THIS PLACE! "Armageddon Online Rulz!"

THANX TO ALL THOSE THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE RETURN OF THE GREATEST FORUM MANKIND HAS EVER KNOWN!!!

Joe (Bigsky770)

lotrfan55345

Mar 10th, 2004, 5:45 PM

... and I thought you were an optimist. :P Anyways, how are you dealing with this? Are you "living it up" or are you preparing both,or what? In my case, since I cannot do anything due to my age, my only choice is "living it up" with my computer and getting bad grades! (Or atleast with my parent's point of view)

Emerald_Dragon

Mar 10th, 2004, 6:06 PM

No,

>Am I missing something?

i was implying that Joe was busy keeping up with politics, the coming oil crisis, and everything thats happening around us. i agree with what he's saying, most of it, stressing some points more and some points less. Its hard to convince everyone around me though. They're blissfully unaware and only complaining about gas prices while they plan trips to Port Arthur [gambling] carpooling in their SUVs.

[OT:Am trying to trade-in my own [SUV] and not even getting book value due to its deplorable gas mileage. Trying to get into a Honda Civic Hybrid.]

>I MISSED THIS PLACE!

me to. was wondering where i was going to go, to discuss politics and stuff without being buried under hatemail. I'm glad you're still around too, Joe. Good, insightful post, BTW.

>what I really believe will occur SHOULD fuel prices reach the predicted
>amounts I've heard mentioned.

well, if Haiti is any indication and if Chavez of Venezuela is serious, you're prediction may come true about high gas prices. you're going to hate yourself for being so close to the mark. IMO, if we really did usurp Democratic Haiti, then Chavez's claims that we've been funding his opposition may hold water. Which means he's not going to sell us oil, much like Iraq didn't. In which case, another 'regime change' will be needed. [i've read John Stockwell's Nicaragua/Angola transcripts, its what we're good at.] Combined with OPEC's decision to put out 500,000 less barrels/year of oil starting April 1, you can only guess how bad its going to get.

And you're right about OBL. German and Iranian papers have already aired his capture in Pakistan. Our administration denies it, of course. I'm sure something's going on to bring a timely revelation of OBL's capture right before the November election, worthy of a media blitz. Something along the lines of SH's capture in that spider hole, after the Kurds traded him to us. I still don't know whether to believe its him, or one of his lookalikes. I know what the media says, but they say what we're supposed to listen to. How long does it take a man to grow a beard like that anyway? 6 months? 7?

And another Black Tuesday in October? hmm, wonder if thats why stocks dipped today. time to put money in gold before it skyrockets.

lotrfan55345

Mar 10th, 2004, 8:41 PM

And another Black Tuesday in October

What's a back Tuesday. I'm really sorry about all these questions but I am economicly uneducated.:(

Also, practice riding a bycicle. :P .... seriously

Chris4334

Mar 10th, 2004, 10:53 PM

What's a black Tuesday.

In 1929 the stock market crashed on a tuesday in October - and this was called Black Tuesday.

The fact that the capture of a single person can raise popularity levels by so much tells a lot about today's society. I am not singling out America; Canada is the same (though we never capture anyone, so this is only a hypothesis :D.)

And another Black Tuesday in October? hmm, wonder if thats why stocks dipped today. time to put money in gold before it skyrockets

You Americans better not screw me over in the stockmarket again >:-|

lotrfan55345

Mar 11th, 2004, 5:53 PM

The most common household uses of oil:

Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, artificial turf, asphalt, aspirin, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, chewing gum, cold, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dice, dishwashing liquid, dresses, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilisers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair, hair colouring, hair curlers, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, house paint, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, jet fuel, life jackets, linoleum, lip balm, lipstick, loudspeakers, medicines, mops, motor oil, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, plastic chairs, plastic cups, plastic forks, plastic wrap, plastics, plywood adhesives, refrigerators, roller-skate wheels, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, running shoes, saccharine, seals, shirts (non-cotton), shoe polish, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, solvents, spectacles, stereos, sweaters, table tennis balls, tape recorders, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, tights, toilet seats, toners, toothpaste, transparencies, transparent tape, TV cabinets, typewriter/computer ribbons, tyres, umbrellas, upholstery, vaporisers, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax, wax paper

lotrfan55345

Mar 24th, 2004, 12:22 PM

This thread needs a little living up.

lotrfan55345

Mar 26th, 2004, 10:54 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1176401,00.html

No one can deny peak oil now! Joe, looks like you were right about all of this.

I assume the Bush administration know about this, yet why do they srill give $20,000 tax breakes to those who buy SUV's. 40% of the US population think; "the economy is strong". I'm sure 99% of the US population does not know about peak oil, nor the upcoming energy crisis, and will not know until it is right at their doorstep. (Which is this summer)

lotrfan55345

Mar 26th, 2004, 9:49 PM

Yes, I realized that you Europeans are still jealous, BUT we Americans do not have the public tansportation systems that you do, and our cities are more spread apart. That makes transportation costs of food, fuel, and other goods much more expensive.

substand

Mar 26th, 2004, 11:11 PM

I think everyone needs to read that if what you say about "Joe" is right.. I haven't had the time yet, but I hope this discussion gets started so I can click on the bold text and remember to read the article

(see this as a reminder to myself if you want =) )

lotrfan55345

Mar 27th, 2004, 1:42 PM

Joe = Bigsky770

VegasRonin

Mar 27th, 2004, 7:46 PM

Hm, the domino like theory of events seem very possible. Gas is already $2.20 a gal. on average Nationally. I've seen it as high as $2.80 here in Vegas. Glad I drive a motorcycle, and live close to work. We do need a good kick in the ass, to get off of oil dependency. Its an archaic fuel source, both figuratively and literally. We need to start reaping the benefits of our Iraqi invasion. Everyone thinks it was for oil anyway, so fuq 'em. :pimp:

Chris4334

Mar 27th, 2004, 7:47 PM

Lotrfan, once you live through enough supposedly catastrophic events you will stop worrying so much. Humanity has a fetish with its own destruction. It's somehow exciting because it means we don't really need to worry about our status today since everything is going to hell soon anyways. Have faith; lack of oil won't end the world. It might cause a few anxious (exciting) years, but what an experience those times will be! :bread:

lotrfan55345

Mar 27th, 2004, 8:44 PM

I'm exited. :thumbs:

lotrfan55345

Mar 28th, 2004, 3:18 PM

Here are some pictures of what life after the oil crash may look like(when most of the people have died): http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

Bigsky770

Mar 28th, 2004, 4:46 PM

- - And though this relates to the "Chernobyl Incident," it
brings a stark reality to bear. For those that didn’t die immediately, theirs was a slow, lingering death. For those still living, their entire lives were displaced. In a matter of minutes they were removed from their homes, their jobs, their families, their friends, their everything. . .
I think everyone that comes across this link should take the time to read the captions, and view the photographs, for so many of them look like they could be any one of the towns in mid-America/the “Heartland” of this country, and the thought has to be brought to mind that this indeed could happen here.
When you see the pictures of the ghost “CITY,” well, I said enough.

To quote a famed member of Armageddon online.org,;

Click the link, dammit. You won’t be sorry.

Joe (Bigsky770)

VegasRonin

Mar 28th, 2004, 6:40 PM

That is a great link Lotr! I saw a special on Chernobyl a few weeks ago on TV. Terrible scenerio, and nobody knew what was really going on because the people running the plant were too afraid of their superiors to be forthright at the time it was happening.

lotrfan55345

Mar 30th, 2004, 3:34 PM

Totaly unrelated, but could show what things could look like after it happens...

Joe, great analogy!

those that didn’t die immediately, theirs was a slow, lingering death

Bigsky770

May 29th, 2004, 10:43 PM

. . . Just heard about this one. WHAT does our government KNOW that they are not telling us?

"Let me just say from the outset that the Federal Reserve has confirmed our Stock Market Crash forecast by raising the Money Supply (M-3) by crisis proportions, up another 46.8 billion this past week. What awful calamity do they see? Something is up. This is unprecedented, unheard-of pre-catastrophe M-3 expansion. M-3 is up an amount that we've never seen before without a crisis - $155 billion over the past 4 weeks, a $2.0 trillion annualized pace, a 22.2 percent annualized rate of growth!!! There must be a crisis of historic proportions coming, and the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is making sure that there is enough liquidity in place to protect our nation's fragile financial system. The amazing thing is, the Fed's actions mean they know what is about to happen. They are aware of a terrible, horrific imminent event. What could it be?"

- - -The entire story HERE!

http://www.safehaven.com/article-1597.htm

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770)

Bigsky770

May 30th, 2004, 12:34 AM

- - -Also another good link with MORE INFORMATION!

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7849

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770)

lotrfan55345

May 30th, 2004, 7:21 PM

Damn... You mat be right about October being back Tuesday ii .

VegasRonin

May 30th, 2004, 8:55 PM

That's some crazy stuff there Joe. Do you believe all that? I'm not sure I do. I guess, I don't want to. :D

Bigsky770

May 31st, 2004, 12:42 PM

- - -And if the money supply should somehow get "bollocked" in all this, DO NOT be TOO SURPRISED!

FDIC Data Vulnerable

AP Wire Report
May 31, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The Depression-era agency that protects Americans´ bank deposits has such lax security that major losses of money, information and other data are possible, congressional auditors said Friday.

The report by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said many weaknesses of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. result from its lack of a fully established security management program.

The GAO studied 2003 audits of the FDIC´s Bank Insurance Fund, Savings Association Fund and Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. Resolution Fund.

Good controls established by an effective security management program are essential to ensuring that financial information is protected from misuse, improper disclosure or destruction, the GAO said. As it operates now, however, the FDIC is unable to ensure that such problems do not occur, the report said.

The FDIC has made significant progress in correcting previously identified glitches in information security, the report said. Still, the agency has not limited access adequately of authorized users or completely secured access to its network against unauthorized use, the GAO said.

Created in 1933 among President Franklin Delano Roosevelt´s early New Deal agencies, the FDIC protects bank and thrift depositors from loss caused by bank closures, insuring most deposits up to $100,000. It insures deposits in excess of $3.3 trillion in about 9,200 institutions.

The FDIC relies heavily on computerized systems to handle its financial operations and information storage.

Auditors found that critical financial and sensitive personnel and bank examination information are at risk of unauthorized disclosure, disruption of operations or loss of assets, the GAO report said. The GAO identified instances in which access to sensitive data and programs had not been adequately restricted:
Many users had unnecessary access to production systems that include financial and bank information.
Many users had access that allowed them to read user identifications and passwords used to transfer data among FDIC production computer systems.
The FDIC did not restrict users adequately from viewing sensitive bank information.

- - -Submitted By Joe (Bigsky770)

The FDIC agreed with the GAO´s recommendations on tightening security.

FactsOverFiction

May 31st, 2004, 1:15 PM

http://www.techcentralstation.com/052704F.html

If you do more searches you will find more of the same. Oil will be around for quite a few lifetimes. And more likely forever because before oil runs out, we will be using other means of power. The only people wanting you to believe oil is running low are the same people who are gouging you at the pump. I would like to see gas over 5 USD a gallon for a few months. I drive all the time, and sometimes run to the grocery store 3 times in one week, I can assure you many of us do the same thing, un-needed travel. But if gas got that high everyone would stop doing that forcing the oil companies to lower the price back down to reasonable levels. Boycotts do not work, stoppages are the only method.

lotrfan55345

May 31st, 2004, 2:41 PM

Oh my god...

I can't begin to explain...

Please *read* the thread first before saying "do some more searches" .

Oil will be around for quite a few lifetimes

God....

----

Is this scenario really that hard to comprehend?

FactsOverFiction

May 31st, 2004, 7:12 PM

Its obvious your not an adult and by saying that I am not trying to insult or take away from your right to have an opinion. But I ask you to refrain from snap judgements as well. My response was to the original thread starter see on most forums when a thread starts going off-the-topic much like this reply and yours the mods will delete it. But in here one can jump from oil reserves and third world nations to the US having a stock market crash. Not very helpful for answering someones inquiry, but as this board is not mine it doesn't matter now does it. But point being I was replying to the thread starter not any of the fluff in-between.

FoF

lotrfan55345

May 31st, 2004, 8:21 PM

I was the original thread starter, was I not?

The stock market crash did have to do with peak oil. "We" and "they" speculate the trigger of the upcoming stock market crash will be the peak in oil production. It has already been proven that oil-sands are energy losers, and that hydrogen is not a viable source unless we have a major bump in electric production. That is why, I said what I said.

FactsOverFiction

May 31st, 2004, 9:48 PM

Proven? Links please as I am quite confident in the research of scientists and not oil mavens, and scientists seem to say that when oil was under 20 a barrel it was not worth it but with oil prices above 25 it was feasible. (Reference previous link in my post) And LOTR doesn't show as the thread starter of this thread you switch nicks?

On to other issues such as oil not being the dominant force much longer two local oil fired power plants are switching back to coal (after switching to oil years back) the pesky thing about us being what we are, we adapt quite readily to changes around us.

FoF

mickydoolittle

May 31st, 2004, 10:16 PM

blah blah

FOF. . .you're arguing with an alleged 12 yr old. Grow the fuq up already.

Bigsky770

May 31st, 2004, 10:36 PM

. . . This "Thread" (yes) "The Coming Oil Crisis" was started by a guest by the name of "Furry" upon the date of 02-18-2003.
. . . The aforementioned "Thread" was MERGED with the thread "The End Of Industrialized Civilization as we know it" that was, (YES) started by non-other than lotrfan55345.
. . . The "REASON" we merge threads as such is to keep them up-to-date and running, and to compress space. Oftentimes, threads that are quite similar in content though have different names are initiated by different individuals at different times. At our attempt to rectify this by merging threads, sometimes this causes a little confusion over who said what when (or) who said what, first. (pay close attention to the HEADERS above the threads, as this should help you in your understanding when threads are merged.) I myself was the one who performed the action of merging these two as I believed then (as I do now) that the discussion therein is compatible and very much related. Btw, Welcome to the forum! :D

Joe (Bigsky770)

VegasRonin

Jun 1st, 2004, 12:12 AM

I myself was the one who performed the action of merging these two as I believed then (as I do now) that the discussion therein is compatible and very much related. Aye Joe, very much related. Probably nigh inseperable. :thumbs:

FactsOverFiction

Jun 1st, 2004, 8:19 AM

lotrfan55345

Jun 1st, 2004, 2:59 PM

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/minerals/WorldOilProject.jpg
"Fit of Verhulst Function to World crude oil production and projection to 2100. The peak will probably be at a later year and the tail will probably be shorter than this projection shows."

We may have had "peak oil production" in 2000.

lotrfan55345

Jun 1st, 2004, 3:00 PM

http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm

CANADIAN OIL SANDS (BITUMEN)

Canada's conventional oil production peaked in 1973. By 1999, Canada's oil total production was about 2.6Mb/day of which 0.5Mb (20%) was from oil sands. The Alberta Energy and Utilities Board estimates that production from Canada's oil sands will be extremely slow (100 to 200 years for all of it).

It has been estimated that Alberta oil sands contain about 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Syncrude is producing over 200,000 barrels of oil a day right now: http://www.syncrude.com/0_00.htm.

Oily waste water is a byproduct of the process used to recover oil from the tarry sands. For every barrel of oil recovered, two and a half barrels of liquid waste are pumped into the huge ponds. The massive Syncrude pond, which measures 22 kilometers (14 miles) in circumference (25 sq. km.), has six meters (20 feet) of murky water on top of a 40-meter-thick (133 feet) pudding of sand, silt, clay and unrecovered oil.

[http://dieoff.com/page143.htm]

To replace conventional crude -- 70 million barrels a day -- would require about 350 such plants. If each of the 350 plants were the size of the present plant, they would require a waste pond of 8,750 sq. km. Or about the half the size of Lake Ontario.

But oil sands are less than half as "energy efficient" as conventional oil, so perhaps one would need 700 plants and a pond 17,500 sq. km -- almost as big as Lake Ontario -- to replace conventional oil.

The above numbers assume that all economic "growth" stops at present levels. Moreover, that does not allow for the increasing energy cost feedback as existing nuclear plants are decommissioned and another 80% of our existing energy sources -- oil, gas, and coal -- become sinks.

If global energy use continued to double every 30 years or so, five more doublings would put Alberta entirely under oily waste water. But even at 100% efficiency, 300 billion barrels of oil sands would only last 12 years at 70 million barrels a day.

At, say, an average of 25% efficiency over all 300 billion barrels, Alberta could supply about 3 years of oil for today's economy. However, because of the decreasing energy efficiency of existing energy sources, and because the mining of oil sands is so environmentally destructive, it seems unlikely that all 300 billion barrels will ever be recovered:

"Since opening its operation in 1978 one company, Syncrude, has excavated 1.5 billion tons of so-called overburden, the 20 meters deep layer of muskeg, gravel and shale that sit atop the actual oil sands. More soil has been excavated by Syncrude than from the construction of the Great Pyramid of Cheops, the Great Wall of China, the Suez Canal and the 10 biggest dams in the world combined. Syncrude has possibly created the largest surface mine in the world." http://sll.fi/TRN/TaigaNews/News17/Oilsand.html.

"Much of the oilsand is too deep to be reached by strip mining. Other methods are being tried to recover this deeper oil, but the economics are marginal. With the strip mining and refining process now in use, it takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to produce one barrel. To expand the strip mining operation to the extent which could, for example, produce the 18 million barrels of oft used each day in the United States would involve the world's biggest mining operation, on a scale which is simply not possible in the foreseeable future, if ever. Canada will probably gradually increase the oil production from these deposits, but until the conventional oil of the world is largely depleted these Canadian deposits are likely to represent only a very small fraction of world production. The production will always be insignificant relative to potential demand. Oilsands are now and will be important to Canada as a long-term source of energy and income. But they will not be a source of oil as are the world's oil wells today." [ GeoDestinies, by Walter Youngquist; National Book Company, 1997. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0894202995. See http://dieoff.com/page132.htm].

---

I had to copy and paste because it was hard to find on that page since it's huge...

http://dieoff.org/synopsis.htm

lotrfan55345

Jun 1st, 2004, 3:06 PM

http://dieoff.com/f.gif

The United States is in a somewhat better position with regard to coal supply. Because the United States has used only a small fraction of its total coal supply, a Hubbert analysis is only speculative: so little of the left side of the Hubbert curve is known that the rest of it cannot yet be projected confidently. Nevertheless, it appears that coal production will not peak until the twenty-second or twenty-third century. Could coal be the answer to "the energy problem"? Certainly the aggressive ad campaign sponsored by the coal industry would have us think so.

We disagree. Besides glossing over the environmental damage resulting from heavy coal use (acid rain, particulate pollution, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere), optimistic projections have been based on total coal resources and have ignored the fact that substantially less net energy may ultimately be obtained from these supplies. The quality of mined coal is falling, from an energy profit ratio of 177 in 1954 to 98 in 1977

These estimates include only fuel used at the mine, however, and do not include the considerable amounts of energy used to build the machines used in the mines, to move the coal away from the mines, and to process it. When these costs are included, the shape of the energy profit ratio curve changes and starts to drop in 1967. More important, with this formulation the energy profit ratio for coal slips to 20 in 1977, comparable to that of domestic petroleum. While an energy profit ratio of 20 means that only 5 percent of coal's gross energy is needed to obtain it, the sharp decline since 1967 is alarming. If it continues to drop at this rate, the energy profit ratio of coal will slide to 0.5 by 2040.

There are several good reasons to expect coal's energy profit ratio to continue its decline, albeit at a slower rate. Strip mining is becoming increasingly popular, accounting for over 60 percent of total production in 1977, compared to 38 percent in 1969. Because it involves building and operating complex machinery to physically strip away vast amounts of overlying dirt and rock (and to put it back), it is more energy intensive than underground mining. Increased strip mining will therefore lower the energy profit ratio. The average thickness of veins uncovered can be expected to continue its downward trend, and the depths at which they're found will increase. Most important, the average heat content of a pound of coal has dropped, about 14 percent between 1955 and 1982, and will probably continue to fall.

Thus, just as the total content of manganese in the crust lying under the United States does not give a true measure of U.S. manganese reserves, simple inventories of total fossil fuel deposits are deceptive. It will be profitable in terms of net energy to tap only a fraction of them -- perhaps only a small fraction.

lotrfan55345

Jun 1st, 2004, 10:05 PM

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-320/of00-320.pdf

Wow, the USGS is now forecasting peak oil to be 2007! :Bday:

Bigsky770

Jun 25th, 2004, 5:13 PM

LINK and story excerpt:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062104_berlin_peak.html

JUNE 21, 2004: 11:00 PDT – (BERLIN, LOS ANGELES), FTW began writing about Peak Oil in the summer of 2002. It was much more difficult then to discuss Peak Oil, what it means or how certain, quick and defiant was to be its arrival. Denial in many minds was so instant and overwhelming that only a trained eye could see its millisecond appearance before encountering the brick wall of a closed mind.
That was then. This is now.
By the spring of 2004 things had changed dramatically. This is both the good news and the bad news. In May of 2004 I attended the third annual conference of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) in Berlin Germany. Although I have a great many friends in ASPO, I tend to leave these conferences feeling as though I’ve had a big meal but am still hungry. Governed as they were by scientific protocols, the 2003 and 2004 conferences seemed to occur in vacuums. With the cool professionalism that’s proper to scientific discourse, the conferences marshaled excellent resources of data and analysis while remaining eerily detached from political and economic developments in the outside world; detached from 9/11; from violence and intrigue in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in West Africa, in Venezuela; detached from bitter conflict and bloodshed, and from economic disintegration
That disconnect was nowhere near as obvious in Paris in May of 2003 as it was in Berlin a year later.
From May 24th 2004, as people arrived for the conference, through the final day on May 26th, the hottest conversations were as much about what was going on in the headlines as was what being discussed inside the room. The two didn’t converge nearly enough. Peak Oil - Berlin was almost twice as large as Paris had been. Many of the 250-plus attendees arrived on both mornings with papers under their arms containing stories about oil shortages and economic issues connected thereto. They tended to meet outside for drinks or meals asking, “Have you seen the cover of the June 2004 National Geographic? It’s Peak Oil!”; “Did you see the International Herald Tribune today on global production and supply?”; “Do you think the Saudis really can increase production or are they bluffing?”; “Did you see where Shell has downgraded their reserves, again!?” “Did you notice that someone finally attacked a Saudi oil facility? Now the Saudis won’t have to prove that they can increase production, either to their people or the markets. It’s the perfect excuse”

A packed house in Berlin.
This had been no overnight development. For almost the entire year between the Paris and Berlin conferences the icons of the mainstream press – the ones known and employed to mold public and business perception – had been acknowledging Peak Oil’s reality, sometimes reluctantly, sometimes less than directly, but also sometimes very boldly. CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the Economist; dozens of media giants had begun to respond, like a giant ship turning slowly in the water. The ship had clearly changed course, but was it enough? Was it in time? I had saved close to 200 of these stories and I asked my staff to prepare a list of the headlines. But the list soon got out of hand – it’s too long. Looking at just a few of them makes the point well enough.
• “The End of Cheap Oil” – National Geographic (Cover Story) – June 2004.
• “What to Use When the Oil Runs Out” – BBC – April 22, 2004
• “Adios Cheap Oil” – Interpress News Agency – April 27, 2004
• “Refining Shortfall Goes Global, Drives Oil Strength” – Reuters – April 26, 2004
• “G7: Oil Price Threatens World Economy” – Moscow Times – 4/26/04
• “World Oil Crisis Looms” – Jane’s -- 4/21/04
• “US Procuring the World’s Oil” – Foreign Policy in Focus – January 2004
• “Are We Running Out of Oil? Scientist Warns of Looming Crisis” – ABC News.com – 2/11/04
• “Alarm as US gas supplies hit low” – Financial Times – 6/09/03
• “American Account: Iraqi crude won’t flow fast enough to cut oil prices” –The Sunday Times – 6/29/03
• “Big oil’s dirty secrets” – Economist – 5/18/03
• “Shell bosses ‘fooled the market’” – BBC – 4/19/04
• “Blood, money, and oil” – US News – 8/18/03
• “Black gold is king” – Asia Times Online – 4/28/04
• “Not in Oil’s Name” – Foreign Affairs – July-Aug 2003
• “Soaring Global Demand for Oil Strains Production Capacity” – Wall Street Journal – 3/22/04
• “Check That Oil” – Washington Post – 11/14/03
• “War of Wars, China Builds Up Oil Reserves” – AP – 3/11/03
• “Asia: Strapped for Energy Resources, China and India Look for Alternatives” – Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – 4/20/04
• “China, Japan Both Eye Russian Oil” – The Korea Times – 9/20/03
• “China’s demand for foreign oil rises at breakneck pace” – Knight Ridder –1/26/04
• ’World oil and gas running out’ – CNN – 10/02/03
• “GLOBAL OIL SUPPLY: ARE WE RUNNING OUT? Experts to Analyze Saudi Arabia’s Energy Future” – The Center for Strategic and International Studies, Media Advisory – 2/19/04
• “Debate Rages on Oil Output by Saudis in Future” – The New York Times – 2/25/04
• “Oil reserves” – The Economist – 6/21/03
• “Energy crisis ‘will limit births’” – BBC News – 2/13/04
• “Energy Agency Raises Oil Demand Estimates” – AP – 11/13/03
• “3 At Duke Energy Charged With Fraud” – Reuters – 4/22/04
• “Freeze strains northeast power grid: cold kills 5 in Michigan, AP reports” – CNN – 1/16/04
• “Fossil-Fuel Dependency: Do oil reserves foretell bleak future?” – San Francisco Chronicle – 4/02/04
• “Fuel disruption test planned [Australia]” – AAP – 3/25/03
• “The End of the Oil Age: Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them” – The Economist – 10/23/03

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

stewey

Jun 25th, 2004, 6:55 PM

We are not running out of oil. There is more oil discovered every year.

lotrfan55345

Jul 1st, 2004, 2:12 AM

Did you read any of the thread at all stewey? Read then debate, thats how it normaly goes. :vbroll:
Then you will know that the amount of oil produced each year will decline. Oil discoveries have peaked in the 70's, 40 years ago. There is no escaping peak oil now. The question is when, the USGS says 2007. And no, technology will not find and infinite amount of oil for us, as there have always been a finite amount of oil in the world, as there is a finite amount of space in the world.

There is also a fundemental flaw in your statement, we've been running out of oil since we first used it. :wlink:

stewey

Jul 1st, 2004, 2:50 AM

The reason for less oil production is because of strikes in oil producing countries and lessened production for economic reasons. They discover new reserves of oil every year due to technology advances. Just because 2000 had the most production does not mean that was the peak oil year (ie the year that we hit 50%). Countries/companies lessen production for economic reasons, and there have been strikes by oil rig workers which tends to slow it down. Show all the graphs you want, but geologists tend to disagree with your facts.

I went to the beach in 1997. I took a handful of sand home as a souvenier. The next year, I went to the beach again. This time, I got about a teaspoon of sand in my clothes which came home with me. Does this mean that we hit the peak sand? Nope, just means I lessened production. Use this analogy with oil.

Sorry, but you have a lot to learn in your teenage years.

FoF is absolutely correct. :toast:

lotrfan55345

Jul 1st, 2004, 4:12 AM

" >The reason for less oil production is because of strikes in oil producing countries and lessened production for economic reasons. "

OPEC reduced production during record high prices... I wonder why.

>"They discover new reserves of oil every year due to technology advances."

You know, oil is finite...

>" Just because 2000 had the most production does not mean that was the peak oil year (ie the year that we hit 50%)."

I entertained that thought, but I am not sure of it. The USGS says 2007 so I'll think with that.

>" Show all the graphs you want, but geologists tend to disagree with your facts."

USGS geologists seen to agree with me, they seem to be very credible to non conspiracy folk...

> "I went to the beach in 1997. I took a handful of sand home as a souvenir. The next year, I went to the beach again. This time, I got about a teaspoon of sand in my clothes which came home with me. Does this mean that we hit the peak sand? Nope, just means I lessened production. Use this analogy with oil. "

I don't exacty understand how this analogy is revelant with oil, they dig and search for it, they don't put barrels around it and hope for some to come in...

So are you disagreeing with the USGS and my other sources or not? If so, this argument is fruitless.

> "Sorry, but you have a lot to learn in your teenage years."

Other, much older people do agree with me... Like the geologists over at USGS.

stewey

Jul 1st, 2004, 4:48 AM

>>OPEC reduced production during record high prices... I wonder why.<<

Because there was too much oil on the market, thus prices were not as high as they could have been. They're not stupid, they take advantage of capitalism. In 2000, oil was ridiculously cheap: there was too much of it. Therefore, they cut production.

Geologists over at USGS go by what data they're given. They're not given all the data. I am probably the least tin-foil-hat person there is, but even I understand that governments cover there asses. As soon as I saw that "life after peak oil" website, I did quite a bit of research on it.

I would guess that we will hit the 50% mark around 2030 or so, based on this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3623549.stm

I agree oil is finite, but theyre finding new reserves every year, and thanks to technology, they can drill in more places. However, I am sure we will discover a new energy source soon, and gradually switch over. The switch would take around 20-30 years or so I am guessing, which would be plenty of time based on the lessened oil consumption as we switch over.

Probably wont be long before we use hydrogen or another source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/index.html

DontBeAfraid

Jul 1st, 2004, 4:51 AM

They really should use the word "extraction" instead of "production", its a lot less misleading.

lotrfan55345

Jul 1st, 2004, 9:43 PM

As for the article from the BBC, how is that more correct than the USGS? Even Matt Simmons, Dubya and co. 's energy advisor thinks the situation is urgent, and this will happen within three years or so.

Here is a good compile of his interviews about energy:

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/INTERVIEWS/MATT.SIMMONS/

"Technology", if technology could infact let us drill more places with oil, and oil discoveries have not yet peaked, how come this technology, in the 70's + did not stop the peak, even if the oil was easily acessable by today's standards? Oil discoveries have been nil (relatively speaking) since the 90's . Also in the 90's, oil exploration techolology supposedly boomed.

As for "alternative energies", have you read the thread at all? Maybe you should solve the problems of these "alternatives" rather than going "It won't be long before we switch to alternatives".

EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm , this BBC article says peak oil production is happening now. :yumyum:

stewey

Jul 2nd, 2004, 12:19 AM

>> As for "alternative energies", have you read the thread at all? Maybe you should solve the problems of these "alternatives" rather than going "It won't be long before we switch to alternatives." <<

Well not much I can do to help solve the problems, as I am a computer scientist. I do totally agree we need to find an alternate source. We do have a decent time length of oil though. However, my dad recently told me they have discovered a way to use an element with nuclear power, and the element has a half life of 30 years or so. Not sure on the validity, but if true, that would be pretty nice. In 90 years, its waste would only be 1/8 left (1/(2^x)) rather than 10000 years like our current nuclear sources. Supposedly theyre going to test it on aircrafts soon.

Conservative Front

Jul 4th, 2004, 12:56 AM

To tell you the truth, you shouldn't worry about the Arab nations, they have had ample time to develop other resources besides holding the monopoly on oil if they can't straighten themselves out so be it they deserve what they get i'm certainly not concerned with there fate because i'm pro-accountability they have had ample amounts of time and still do to develop other resources for market and if there unwilling too and just want to hang on to a dieing resource then thats what the deserve I for one won't be crying if there oil gets depleted by then America should have the situtation under control (i'm all for nuclear power plants and such nice clean burning fuel and safe if you have the right people running it) so they should either get in line or stop while there ahead.

There fate is up to them let them decide.

""""I can't believe I missed this one a little late but thats my 2 cents"""""

Emerald_Dragon

Jul 4th, 2004, 2:55 PM

>Sorry, but you have a lot to learn in your teenage years.

:grin you're an 'adult' and seem to know much less...

>We are not running out of oil. There is more oil discovered every year.

i'm glad you now agree that its a finite resource, however.

Define Peak Oil. Then maybe, you'll understand what that teenager is saying.

IMO, you should learn about something, before you start talking about it. Like Moore's movie. It helps make you look better informed, instead of un-informed altogether. That way, you'll have the insight to make valid points and debate with available information.

>Well not much I can do to help solve the problems,
>as I am a computer scientist.

so you invented/evolving the computer? wow. I thought Gore did that, oh wait, he invented the Internet.

Hydrogen cars are ready for production. Instead, we are grabbing 25% of the worlds known oil reserves. If we found there wasn't oil in the Sahara, will we likely find oil there in the future? will it cost more or less for us to process?

>you shouldn't worry about the Arab nations,..
>besides holding the monopoly on oil

they don't hold a monopoly. we have oil, the Russians and Chinese have oil. We're just wanting to use up their supply before we have to use ours. think about it. why is it so important?

stewey

Jul 4th, 2004, 8:08 PM

Computer scientist is another word for computer programmer/analyst/etc... The degree is computer science, so the term computer scientist is used quite often.

You see, there is as much evidence supporting the "there is a lot of oil left" as there is "we are ****ed in a few years". Peak oil is the point when the bell curve is at the top of the curve. However, oil production is not a bell. Just because they produced less oil does NOT mean they could not have. They did not because they know that less supply = more demand = more money. In 1980, they produced less than in 1970. Then in 1990s, they produced more than in the 1980s. 1970s were not the peak, and neither was 2000 probably (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/midpoint.htm). The strikes in oil producing companies did not help the situation either. And if we were after oil/gas in Afghanistan/Iraq, we would go after Saudi Arabia and Iran before Iraq. We couldve justified a war there just as easily as Iraq, or even easier in Iran's case. Iran has a lot more oil, and Saudi has the most.

And yes, due to technology, it is cheaper to produce oil as technology advances. They also are discovering more oil reserves, in more remote places.

EDIT: re-looking up my sources to link

http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/run_out_of_oil.htm
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html (read conclusion)
http://www.oilanalytics.org/policy/dejavu.html

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 5th, 2004, 12:22 AM

Dammit! You all are confusing me with all this science, curves and charts! Oil HAS to peak at some point since they dont make dinosaurs anymore. :argue: :Bott:

Conservative Front

Jul 5th, 2004, 1:41 AM

Damn it, lets make some dinosaurs. you limey bastards is THAT easy.

I think we should drill Alaska for the oil reserves there we know its there but the damn EPA is having a fit about drilling about 1/5,000,000,000th (not exact figure) of the state. so Really this confuses me the Libs don't want to Drill for oil and they don't want to fight for oil so what the hell do they want? (sorry about the off topicness there

DontBeAfraid

Jul 5th, 2004, 5:04 AM

To switch to something clean and renewable....... Oil doesnt have to make the world go 'round.

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 5th, 2004, 6:26 AM

Damn it, lets make some dinosaurs. you limey bastards is THAT easy. WTF?? Where did this racist statement come from CF? Not one of the people posting responses in this thread is English! Retract that WITH an apology! :dork:

I think we should drill Alaska for the oil reserves there we know its there but the damn EPA is having a fit about drilling about 1/5,000,000,000th (not exact figure) of the state. so Really this confuses me the Libs don't want to Drill for oil and they don't want to fight for oil so what the hell do they want? (sorry about the off topicness there Hey, blame your conservative buddy Nixon for signing ANWR (I agree with it). Then you can also blame your conservative buddies Joseph Scarborough and John Chafee who opposed eliminating ANWR in 1995 along with a few conservative Republican friends. Former Congressman Pete McCloskey supported tougher environmental regulations. Some of your conservative buddies dont want to save the oil products (specifically liquified natural gas) for its citizens, some of them want to sell it to Japan. Just that alone (selling to Japan) is enough for me to oppose it.

I can guess that a distinguished conservative such as yourself doesnt give a rats ass about the Gwich'in Indians that live on ANWR lands or their human rights nor the Porcupine River Caribou whose calving grounds are located there that the Indigenous people live off of. Not to mention the polar bear who make those lands home as well as hundreds of other animals including fish and whales. The Inupiat leader that regulated oil interests at the time felt that while oil production may be a viable income resource, the cost to the caribou would be too much. "Eskimos" dont want drilling out at sea because it will affect whaling and fishing.

I always thought the term "conservative" sounded like an oxymoron since "conserving" never seemed to be a part of the agenda. But since this isnt neccessarily true, there wouldnt be organizations like "Republicans for Environmental Protection" (www.rep.org) and "ConservAmerica" (www.conservamerica.org).

Why is it that very public conservative columnists can write pages and pages of material and never use the word "liberal" but you cannot? If you could post without placing every blame on a liberal, you might be taken more seriously. :ohmy:

dutchie

Jul 5th, 2004, 6:35 AM

Hahahaha!!! You Americans and your 2 party system are sooo funny!!! (just a little remark to tease things up a bit... :devsmoke: )

There is not JUST right and left.. BTW what you people call leftwing is still damn right to center in my opinion...

There is a great big number of shades of grey between these. But above all there is just common sense. Common sense should NOW be that oil has had its time. Let's forget it. Concentrate on something really new, clean and abundant. It's already here. Wanna stay dependant on ANY state in the future, then go on burning the filth. :ohmy:

MacRasta

Jul 5th, 2004, 9:21 AM

I've been thinking for a longtime to snap some free energy out of our skies, but the equipment is still pretty expensive and we have to pay taxes on it (monthly taxes). Can you believe that? That means that people who own such equipment and have to pay taxes on them.... literally pay for the air to breathe and the sun to shine!!

There are enough ways to exclude oil from the most oil-based materials around. Hemp does miracles, for instance. We don't need oil as much as the quantities we are using now.
I'm proud that my country is developing their windmill-parks, as does Holland and other countries in Europe. The wind always blows around here...

And of course, there's always muscle power, but it seems a lot of people have forgotten that?

Mac

dutchie

Jul 5th, 2004, 9:28 AM

Paying taxes for the use of solar collector boards?? Bwahahahaha!!!! Have they gone completely bonkers over there?!?

The most promising energy sources would be hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion. The latter will probably take another 50 years, the first is already among us. Biggest problem is safe storage and refueling of the liquid gas.

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 5th, 2004, 9:33 AM

and we have to pay taxes on it (monthly taxes). Can you believe that? That means that people who own such equipment and have to pay taxes on them.... literally pay for the air to breathe and the sun to shine!! WHAT??? Thats INSANE!!! America as a political "example" may be nutz but at least we arent taxed for solar, some states even subsidize it in some way. If you produce more than you need you can sell it back to the local utility provider. Let me take that back, if it was popular enough here they probably would tax it.

And of course, there's always muscle power, but it seems a lot of people have forgotten that? That would require using brain muscle first, something that is equally forgotten.

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 5th, 2004, 10:44 AM

The most promising energy sources would be hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion. The latter will probably take another 50 years, the first is already among us. Biggest problem is safe storage and refueling of the liquid gas. Hydrogen would be a great alternative considering the water emissions but like you said, there would need to be safe storage and refueling. Im not sure of costs but being cost effective would be equally as important. I hated filling propane tanks so I cant imagine hydrogen being any better.

Ive been against the nuclear power plants here since I became aware of them. Unless a better method of storage or of somehow recycling the waste had been found, we shouldnt have built them in the first place. I was utterly astounded when there was discussion of shooting the waste into space.

dutchie

Jul 5th, 2004, 12:32 PM

Ahem. Nuclear fusion is a quite different process from the one that takes place in the "old" plants... The waste products are neglectible, and the amount of energy rendered is unbelievable. But fusion is still in its infant state.

It is quite certain that sage refueling methods and storage could be developed within the next 10 years.

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 5th, 2004, 1:16 PM

Thats great except for one thing, not too long ago there was a huge battle between the Private Fuel Storage, local governments and reservations in Nevada and Utah over storing waste on Indian reservations there. Its still bad enough that they try to bribe for storage.

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pfsejfactsheet.htm

Emerald_Dragon

Jul 5th, 2004, 2:19 PM

> Oil HAS to peak at some point since they dont make dinosaurs anymore.

i think they've discovered that oil isn't dead dinosaurs. Its decayed matter or something. Lookup 'Biomass' and see what they're doing to substitute oil, synthetically. Sortof...

>I think we should drill Alaska for the oil reserves

IMO, they are going to hold off drilling there until we need it. The EPA is just the current agency used as a blocker to prevent us from using up all our resources, at once. I'm sure they'll let us drill in the future.

>Ive been against the nuclear power plants here since I became aware of them.

Nuclear Fusion Power Plants would be cleaner than the current Fission ones. The waste would be water. It might be slightly radioactive, but I don't believe its enough to hurt anything. Distilled water roughly.

The current Tokamak reactors require alot of energy to start, but well, they haven't perfected it yet. Once they do, it could turn out to be zero-cost energy source. A source that is self-sustaining, generating more energy than it uses. The problem lies in the maintenance of the "magnetic bottle" to contain the reaction and the slow deteriorization of the containment fields/devices, over time. I believe, once they figure out how to channel the fused plasma from one device to a backup device while the primary one gets fault tolerance maintenance, we'll be in business.

Whatall i know is 20+ years old, I'm sure they've overcome some of the obstacles by now. Need to readup on it. It was my favorite subject when i was a kid.

Bigsky770

Jul 5th, 2004, 2:33 PM

- - -And are undeniable; We have reached that "APEX", (and) WE ARE THERE.

Interview: Richard Heinberg, Author
By
Jim Puplava
March 22, 2003

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_heinberg_puplava_interview_032203.htm

- - -Now I know that it's a long read, folks, (though trust me on this) it is quite informative, and should end any disputes in thought here and now. . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

Conservative Front

Jul 5th, 2004, 10:56 PM

haha i'm sorry to all the english for saying Limey... I say it all the time and didn't intend for it to be racist :cryrv:

and I disagree with those republicans views on ANWR, i'm simply saying the greatest opposition comes straight from the EPA.

In reality its such a small fraction of land they would be drilling it wouldn't have quite the adverse affects you're talking about It wouldn't force them out of there land it would really affect the fish or the whaling it would merely be a means of bolstering our own oil production and allowing us to put a stomp on Middle east oil I don't believe it would harm the people to the extent you're making it out to be.

Not all of my post blame just liberals I was using it as a references.

---end response to defiant---

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 6th, 2004, 5:54 AM

haha i'm sorry to all the english for saying Limey... I say it all the time and didn't intend for it to be racist Not intending to say or imply anything is truly novel, right. So is your lack of commas and periods. However, can you not even recognize how truly ignorant what is quoted above is? You say it all the time and yet you deny being racist or biggoted? Thats like calling Black people niggers all the time and then trying to justify it. Then again, it wouldnt put it past you. Ill bet you think the Washington "Redskins" would not be offensive either. "haha" thanks for proving you are a full time racist, yet again.

Oh yes, and I dont want ANYONE to forget that you called them "limey BASTARDS". How quaint you can so flippantly say they are illegitimate as well. I already knew you think yourself superior but you dont have to work so hard proving it. Your apology sux and is without merit you racist ingrate. :ohmy:

and I disagree with those republicans views on ANWR, i'm simply saying the greatest opposition comes straight from the EPA. Then say what you mean to begin with instead of coming right out questioning liberal motives. Its great that you cast such a strong shadow on liberals while conveniently forgetting there are some among your own conservative bunch that feel the same as liberals. You are just like HH in thinking that you can shove someone into a neat and tidy category from a few of their viewpoints.

In reality its such a small fraction of land they would be drilling it wouldn't have quite the adverse affects you're talking about It wouldn't force them out of there land it would really affect the fish or the whaling it would merely be a means of bolstering our own oil production and allowing us to put a stomp on Middle east oil I don't believe it would harm the people to the extent you're making it out to be. How arrogant. Of course you wouldnt, you know nothing about them. I have relatives living up there and their way of life is completely dependant on the land and the movement of the animals as it is, not how you think it will be. Its not like they can just plug in the fridge where they live and since this is a "free" country, they should not be forced to move from their home. Where is your environmental impact statements and your research regarding the people and caribou movement there to prove this ignorance you proclaim? If the caribou moved because of the disturbance then the people would be forced to move to survive.

Not all of my post blame just liberals I was using it as a references. If George Will and William F. Buckley can write entire columns not even mentioning liberals, I hardly see how impossible it is for you. Those two conservative Republicans have my complete respect even though I dont agree with them half the time. They dont resort to the mindless superiorism and bigotry you espouse to.

Emerald_Dragon

Jul 6th, 2004, 4:55 PM

>In reality its such a small fraction of land they would be drilling
>it wouldn't have quite the adverse affects you're talking about It

yeah, and the Exxon Valdez was just 1 tanker with a sleepy captain....

>allowing us to put a stomp on Middle east oil I don't believe it would harm
>the people to the extent you're making it out to be.

have you even read the article linked above? do you understand why we're importing it vs. using up our last supplies of it? :deal:

Conservative Front

Jul 7th, 2004, 12:45 AM

You've really taken that out of context. plus i'm justified in saying it because i'm 50% Polish and 50% English. So I can call myself a Pollack and a Limey Bastard if I want too... i'm being Racist? How do you come to that conclusion? because I said Limey? I didn't direct that too anyway You've simply BLOW THIS OUT OF CONTEXT. (oh and you're correct I find nothing offensive about the name of a Football team)

Wow, Just because someone has a titled next to there name doesn't mean I agree with every word they say I realize that not everyone on myside of politics agrees with me. for example Id support Zell Miller for senate if I lived in his state and hes a Democrat but I like his views on most things.

Ok, so if this is a free country shouldn't oil companys be able to drill wherever they want? I can really go deep into this about my ancestrys being harrashed "polish" and no one seemed to care about them. and Yes I've done lots of research about this and from what I can tell it wouldn't really affect anyone but the enviroment and I believe you know my stance on protecting the enviroment.

I don't know why they don't use the word liberal in there colums for one reason alone i'm not them. and Bigotry and superiority? pointing fingers at me again?

You know theres really something I don't understand about you. You seems to be absolutely disgusted by my post which is kind of ironic because it seems you hate what I have too say but you don't follow you're own advice which you've given me on so many accasions "Be Open Minded" how hypocritial of you...

and to end this Bigot: A Conservative wining an argument with a Liberal.
Maybe you shouldn't be so Self-absorbed and head you're own advice and be Open minded....
---end response to Defiant---

Mistakes happen.

Yeah, I've read it.

---end response to emerald dragon---

DontBeAfraid

Jul 7th, 2004, 4:03 AM

Dont lie about what research you have done....

dutchie

Jul 7th, 2004, 4:12 AM

well, that's an assumption that came to my mind too, but you'd have a hard time disproving it, DBA. The reason I thought he didn't was the casual way this member jumps around with our dear mother Earth. I wondered what triggered your response..

DontBeAfraid

Jul 7th, 2004, 4:39 AM

His response to the FACTS that were clearly presented earlier in this thread. He qualified everything he said with "I believe" or "I think" or "in my opinion" type statements. These types of statements are not used when you have facts and knowledge of a subject. When you have knowledge of a subject you tend to use direct statements, as I have done in this post, and not preface it with qualifiers which can leave doubt about your authority on a subject, as CF did.
Unless he is an expert on ecosystems, which his age and poor grammer make impossible for me to believe, his opinion is of little value.

dutchie

Jul 7th, 2004, 4:44 AM

You're damn right. Checked his profile. The kid is just a poor brainwashed sod.

MacRasta

Jul 7th, 2004, 8:22 AM

You're damn right. Checked his profile. The kid is just a poor brainwashed sod.

Better late than never, he Dutchie! :grin

Le MacFantastik

dutchie

Jul 7th, 2004, 8:58 AM

I wasn't asleep.. Just been working my ass off..

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 7th, 2004, 4:18 PM

Great explanation DBA. This kid is getting more incoherent with each post.

Conservative Front

Jul 7th, 2004, 11:48 PM

Of course 90% of political objects are a matter of opinion would you say so? and are you a master of the ecosystem You seem to know alot more about it then me so please oh please tell me whats right to do of course that would be an opinion so you'd be wrong no?

---end response to Dontbeafraid---

Brainwashed? how do you figure i'm brainwashed? would it be better if I was say a Centrist or a Liberal? Would that make me unbrainwashed How do you justify you're view of me being brainwashed? i'm truly at a loss for this one...

---end response to dutchie---

Yes, Incoherent in you're eyes defiant. You don't agree with what I have to say so of course to you it's incoherent. Good way of putting it. :thumbs:

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 8th, 2004, 12:04 AM

Yes, Incoherent in you're eyes defiant. You don't agree with what I have to say so of course to you it's incoherent. Good way of putting it. Are you suggesting that I am the only one that sees you not using commas or periods? Be realistic. Its not my fault that you post long running sentances and even leave some strangely formed so that they make little sense. Hence, your posts becoming more incoherant.

If you want respect then act like it. You trash english grammar so badly that even people outside of english dominant countries do it better. They havent used english near as much as you have.

DontBeAfraid

Jul 8th, 2004, 4:22 AM

I dont post MY opinion on things I'm not an expert on, I post the opinions of EXPERTS... In this case others have posted links to the opinions of experts.

and fyi, the ecology of the earth IS NOT a political issue where many different opinions can coexist, it is a system with very little margin for error as is demonstrated by the LACK OF abundant life capable areas throught the universe.... Thats right, the universe is on my side here CF.

dutchie

Jul 8th, 2004, 4:55 AM

Brainwashed? how do you figure i'm brainwashed? would it be better if I was say a Centrist or a Liberal? Would that make me unbrainwashed How do you justify you're view of me being brainwashed? i'm truly at a loss for this one...

---end response to dutchie---
Because one thing is lacking from ALL of your posts: nuance. You have a total inability to move your camera around a subject. There are many shades of grey to the interpretation of any given situation. You must then either be very dimwitted, or so utterly influenced by your mentors that I might indeed use the word brainwashed. In your case the word "Conservative" should be read as "rigid". I know conservatives I have a great time discussing with. I am not AGAINST you. The only time I get seduced into personal attacks is when I meet people that blurt out blatant propaganda, without any personal insight, experience or knowledge of the subject. DBA is so right when he says he will stay away from that. I would urge you to do the same, if you don't want to be the laughing stock of these forums.

lotrfan55345

Jul 8th, 2004, 11:07 AM

OK, so the article Bigsky posted, what do you people think?

---

OT: How bad is my grammar?

Defiant Noquisi

Jul 8th, 2004, 12:41 PM

OK, so the article Bigsky posted, what do you people think? OT: How bad is my grammar? Your grammar is fine. However, what the author of that book is suggesting really concerns me, well all of us. It is rather frightening even.

lotrfan55345

Jul 21st, 2004, 2:46 PM

"Sustainable" oil debunked:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PostOilTimesAbioticOil.html

He seems abit hostile though... I guess people get panicky when the time is close for the peak...

lotrfan55345

Jul 23rd, 2004, 12:00 PM

Oil Production
1970: US production peaks
1987: Soviet Union production peaks
1997: World production outside of Mid East peaks
1999: UK production peaks
2000: World production of conventional oil peaks
2004: Saudi Arabia likely peaking

Oil Prices
1999: $11.00
2004: $42.00

Gas Prices:
1999: $0.80
2004: $2.20

Geopolitical Events
2002: Invasion of Afghanistan to build a pipeline
2003: Invasion of Iraq to seize oil fields
2004: Talk of action against Iran, Saudi Arabia, West Africa, etc. . .

Yeah, I guess the validity of Peak Oil is still up for debate . . . .

---

How about this: My grandmother told me about when gasoline cost only $0.05 a gallon. She was born in 1933. Current price for gas in town is $2.05. Percentage increase from 5 cents to $2.05 a gallon is 4100%. Given this rate of increase, I will live to see gasoline to raise to $84.05 a gallon, and this is just using the past examples of increase in price to reflect the future. Just think, at that price, it would cost about $3,362.00 to fill up a suburban, or $1,681 to fill up my current vehicle. Even if peak oil doesn't happen, (which is like pigs flying out my anus and starting to speak English), if wages also do not go up 4100%, then we will be in a world of hurt 60 years from now.

-

From Matt Savinar

lotrfan55345

Aug 6th, 2004, 3:03 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/03/news/international/opec.reut/ : OPEC can't pump more... (I wonder how high the prices would be if they stuck to their production quotas)

http://www.energybulletin.net/1320.html : "Running our of oil"

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3070195 : Price of oil will hurt global economy

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=5863 :

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/ : 2004 PO, The official website for ASPO, which Matt Simons (Dubya's energy advisor) is so keen to participate in...

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/viewpoints/mvoice/040629oilprices.shtml : The glass is half full, in the ME.

So let me introduce you to a kook. In 1956, when U.S. oil wells were spouting like so many Old Faithfuls, a geophysicist named Marion King Hubbert thought he was the prophet Teiresias. He predicted that U.S. oil production would eventually peak and then decline at 3 percent forever thereafter. He based this nonsense on the history of U.S. oil exploration and on the behaviors of individual wells over time. Then, using estimates of total U.S. reserves, he calculated the year of absolute peak of production: 1970. His findings were ridiculed by his employer (Shell) and ignored by the public. This silly man was wrong, of course - oil production in the lower 48 states didn't peak until 1971.

lotrfan55345

Aug 6th, 2004, 3:10 PM

The other "oil war" ... China vs. Japan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10714-2004Jun27.html

lotrfan55345

Aug 7th, 2004, 4:27 PM

A single hydrogen fuel cells require 20 grams of platinum. If the cells are mass produced, it may be possible to get the platinum requirement down to 10 grams per cell. The world has 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum reserves. There are approximately 700 million internal combustion engines on the road.

10 grams of platinum/fuel cell x 700 million fuel cells = 7 billion grams of platinum.

Thus replacing the 700 million oil powered vehicles on the road with fuel cell powered vehicles would require us to mine every single ounce of platinum currently in the earth and divert all of it for fuel cell construction only.

This is, of course, absolutely impossible as platinum is astonishingly energy intensive (expensive) to mine, is already in short supply, and is indispensable to thousands of crucial industrial processes.

Even if this was possible, what do we do once we hit “Peak Platinum?” Will the dollar be the reserve currency for all platinum transactions, replacing the “petrodollar” with the “platinum-dollar?” Will Michael Moore produce a movie documenting the connection between the president’s family and foreign platinum companies? Will a presidential candidate proclaim a plan to “reduce our dependence on foreign platinum” while insisting he will “jawbone the foreign platinum bosses” and “make sure American troops don’t have to die for foreign platinum?”

If the hydrogen economy was anything other than a complete myth, such issues would eventually arise as 80% of the world’s proven platinum reserves are located in that bastion of geopolitical stability, South Africa.

It’s possible to use solar derived electricity to get hydrogen from water, but a renewably based hydrogen economy will require the installation of 40 trillion dollars worth of photovoltaic panels. That's 400% of US GDP.

This, of course, is on top of the cost of mining every singe ounce of platinum in the earth, building the fuel cells, and constructing a hydrogen infrastructure, all of which would have to be completed as the world economy suffers massive dislocations due to a rapidly dwindling supply of oil.

Rage_Garden

Aug 21st, 2004, 3:02 AM

This article might seem a little anti Bush, I dont want to seem that way but here it is...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082104I.shtml

Crude oil prices soared yesterday to nearly $49 a barrel, heightening concerns that sustained high energy costs could drag the slowing U.S. and world economies into a more serious downturn.

With growth slowing in China, Europe and Japan, some economists worry that rapidly escalating oil prices will trigger a self-reinforcing spiral of falling demand in the U.S. economy and among its trading partners.

"The economy is near its tipping point," Stephen S. Roach, chief economist for Morgan Stanley, said yesterday. He said the nation would likely fall back into recession if oil prices hover near $50 a barrel for three to six months.

Anways what do you think is going to happen in the coming months?

lotrfan55345

Oct 12th, 2004, 6:00 PM

Whoa, I can't belive I missed this! Princeton's website has an entire section on Peak Oil!

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/index.html

That professor estimates peak oil to be Thanksgiving 2005.

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-01-16-04.html

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 8:05 AM

. . .Thread merged because content was so similiar, take note that topic "End of Industrialized Civilization as we know it" actually was started by our own "lotrfan55345" and previous to that was a like topic started by "furry", (hasn't been seen in awhile but never forgotten)
. . .Friday 10/22/2004 market close oil per Bbl. $55.12 RECORD TERRITORY.

Sucks, don't it? Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

lotrfan55345

Oct 24th, 2004, 11:10 AM

Here is a great informative video from a Princeton professor. If you think there is a lot more oil to be found, and the peak will happen 1 million years from now, this is for you.

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/nj45win9664/SPE/deffey.wmv/play.asx
( In WMV format, takes awhile if ur on dial-up)

He debunks the "a lot more oil to be found" theory so clear and concise, it is like 2+2=4 there is no place for discussion.

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 11:29 AM

. . .Look for the next week to be a rough one in the "Oil Markets". Simply stated: WE'RE SCREWED.

Joe (Bigsky770) :sick:

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 3:34 PM

. . .Doing a little surfing in light of recent events re: The Dow Jones dropping below the critical 10,000 support level, (also) the price of oil per Bbl. @ $55.12 market close 10/22 after spiking a high of as much as $57.00 previous to market close. Also word has it that the dollar is tanking. . .What gives here, what say you all? Here are some LINKS to peruse before reply:

http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=$USD,uu[h,a]waclyyay[pc20!c40!f][vc60][iut!Ub14!La12,26,9]&pref=G

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u

http://newsfromrussia.com/main/2004/10/22/56751.html

http://www.financialsense.com/Market/daily/thursday.htm

Don't run screaming just yet. . .would like to get a little feedback from Y'all . . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

MetalMilitia

Oct 24th, 2004, 3:39 PM

China Dump USD for Oil and Gold (http://www.safehaven.com/article-2102.htm)

There was a lot of disturbing news about the $USD today and yesterday. Worries over oil prices, Gas prices over $2, people dropping the $USD... if its a sign of things to come it's not very well timed for Bush & Co.

I pick up on a lot of these stories about the US economy tanking, I try to post 'em when I can.

http://www.armageddononline.org/economy.php

Combine all that with outsourcing jobs - I don't know how anyone can say the US economy is "strong" by any means.

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 6:17 PM

. . .For that additional link and posting of the news. (my fault, my friend. . .I spend so-much time surfing for news on the web I was not aware of all the great stories you posted right-here-@-home). Everyone NEEDS to read those stories, Kudos on a great job, dude! Back to the subject; No, things certainly DO NOT look very good. But there is more to this than that, stay with me (here) and I'll explain.
. . .WHY NOW? This timing is all wrong. Politics is politics, and as everyone is all very well aware of, things SHOULD (as "Politics" go) have the ability to "look good" pre-election. Numbers can be manipulated/back-room dirty-deals done, for the so-called benefit of the incumbant. But the way things appear, it seems as though everything could go down the shitter PRE-ELECTION. This just doesn't add up. Unless . . .

1. Could it be that the "powers-that-be" WANT GWB to lose the election to Kerry? (when I say "TPTB") I am surely not referring to an "American" interest. Though we carry much power militarily it could have the potential of driving the point home that NO/WE ain't Numero uno on the block anymore. Speculation from anyone on what purpose that could serve?

2. An "Economic Crash" [that has been contrived] months prior to the election YES, could prove fortuitous for the incumbant in this way: Crash happens, All hell breaks lose/"Martial Law" declared, ELECTION SCRAPPED. Understand, when I say "contrived" I am saying this with the knowledge that our "Money Supply" (M2) has been running dangerously bloated for months now. I have been keeping an 'eye' on it, and last figures released puts it higher than it's EVER BEEN.

I'm SURE I am just going-over points that "Prez" and yourself have probably already touched on, yet I am finding myself asking these questions now with all the info. I find myself inundated with. Looking at the economic data, graphs/charts does NOTHING to instill a sense of ease to your psyche'. The next weeks should prove very interesting, indeed. . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

lotrfan55345

Oct 24th, 2004, 9:05 PM

Also, Kerry says he will "support" the hydrogen initiative... Atleast he's trying. :/

Bigsky770

Oct 24th, 2004, 9:41 PM

trying to get "elected!"

. . .Before "Bush" got into office, HE was "Pro Environment!" (Wot Hopponed?) - - A politician will say ANYTHING to get the highest office in the land. And now, (taking in mind Matt's most recent post re; "Litigation") it's no-longer even a choice betwixt and between the lesser of two evils. Now, it's who's got the best lawyers!

. . .Where does that leave US?

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

niteflyer

Oct 25th, 2004, 10:53 AM

I think the elections will go somewhat smoothly with nothing but some fraud allegations. Unless the sheet heads have something up their sleeve.... but I dont think its in Bushs best interests to let anything blow up right now...and the sheet heads arent as organized in the US as were lead to believe.
Right after the election, (Im personally predicting Bush, but in the history of US presidential elections he with the most blue blood wins, which means Kerry) I think things are gonna get worse in a hurry, hi oil prices, record deficit, devalueing dollar, severe stock and economic woes; Ive been harping on this stuff. There is just no way we can currently fund Kerrys heath reform. We will then do what we always do...start a war...Iran first for sure, for their oil supplies and to rid them of nukes. I think its gonna get way more ugly for the good ole US than any of us can imagine; and kill about a third of the world directly in a world war, and the chaos and environmental damage killing another third in a few years. Then a true world government out of the ashes....

lotrfan55345

Oct 25th, 2004, 3:53 PM

I've always been most wary of the collapse of the Petrodollar system as most dangerous to our current lifestyle. I think one of the reasons we went to Iraq was to prop up this increasingly tenuous currency system.

Foreigners (Hey, I wouldn't - Saddam Hussein didn't)do not like having to denominate their oil purchases in dollars. If they were to rebel and start buying oil in euros or, say, a basket of currencies instead of the dollar, the dollar would collapse and the US would instantly revert to third world economic status. A scenario like that could lead to WWIII. That is why, we have spent so much on our military; because we can no longer control the rest of the world economically.

You may not belive everything in the article (nether do I) but it does raise valid points.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp
(Lebanon Wire : News from Beiruit(sp?) : Neo's homeland)

Bigsky770

Oct 25th, 2004, 10:15 PM

(sorry. John Lennon was singing this song in my head as I was reading. NOW I can't get that damn song outta my head!). . .Oh well. . .

Reuters

Dollar Hovers Above Lows, No Respite Seen
Monday October 25, 10:43 pm ET
By David McMahon

TOKYO (Reuters) - The dollar hovered just above multi-month lows on Tuesday as nagging worries about the strength of the U.S. economy and the gaping trade deficit kept investors on the back foot.
Analysts said the dollar would likely stay under pressure from a range of factors, including uncertainty about the result of November's presidential election and comments from European officials that suggest they are comfortable with a higher euro.
"I don't think we've seen the end of this bout of dollar weakness," said Tohru Sasaki, chief forex strategist at JPMorgan Chase in Tokyo, adding the currency was unlikely to gain support from economic data due this week.
By 10:20 p.m. EDT, the dollar bought around 106.71 yen barely changed on the day and not far off the six-month low of 106.22 it scraped on Monday.
The euro, which has gained close to five percent in the past three weeks, was up slightly at $1.2815 In U.S. trade it rose briefly to a fresh eight-month high of 1.2830, just one cent below a record high of 1.2930 struck in February.
The Swiss franc was at around 1.1946 per dollar, just above the previous day's eight-year high of 1.1938.
The U.S. dollar index which shows the dollar's movement against a basket of major currencies including the euro and the yen, hit an eight-month low on Monday.
The index has dipped around 3.4 percent since the release of data on Oct. 14 that showed the U.S. trade deficit in August was the second-largest on record.
An address by European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet on Monday also helped to underpin the euro.
In his annual report to the European Union parliament, Trichet did not speak directly on currencies. That contrasted with his comments in January, when he called the euro's surge "brutal," sending it tumbling.
FED TO STAY PUT?
A surge in oil prices to record highs of above $55 dollars a barrel this week has heightened worries about the strength of the U.S. economy, and led some to question whether a series of interest rate rises by the Federal Reserve is coming to an end.
"I think it's now a 50/50 question of whether the Fed is still going to raise rates in November," said Hideaki Furumaya, forex manager at Trust & Custody Services Bank in Tokyo.
"If they decide to hold off it would show that the Fed has turned bearish on the U.S. economy, and obviously that would not be a good scenario for the dollar."
The Fed has raised rates three times this year to 1.75 percent, and until very recently, was widely expected to continue that cycle when its policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) next meets on November 10, around a week after the U.S. presidential election.
A further clue on the state of the economy will come later on Tuesday when the U.S. Conference Board releases October consumer confidence data. Economists in a Reuters survey expect a median reading of 94.0 compared with 96.8 in September.
Some say a victory for Democratic Senator John Kerry over President Bush in the election would be a signal to sell the dollar, since a Kerry administration would likely be less tolerant about any Japanese intervention to stem the yen's rise.
Still, in Japan, which is benefitting from strong exports to China, officials have shown less concern about a stronger yen than last year.
In 2003, they spent a record 20 trillion yen to help prop up the dollar and defend the country's export-led economic recovery.
Japan will take action if the dollar falls too quickly against the yen, Vice Finance Minister for International Affairs Hiroshi Watanabe said in New York on Monday.
But many believe such action is unlikely in the near-term.
"I don't think we'll see any intervention until the dollar/yen breaks below 103," said JP Morgan's Sasaki.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/041025/markets_forex_2.html

This, From: www.morganstanley.com/

Cracked Facade

Stephen Roach (New York)

The delicate equilibrium in world financial markets may be starting to unravel. The dollar has broken out of its recent range, credit spreads are widening, equities are sagging, and riskless sovereign bonds are well bid. The message is worrisome: For an unbalanced and increasingly vulnerable world economy, the unrelenting rise of oil prices spells mounting risks of global recession in 2005. Financial markets are only just beginning to comprehend this possibility.

FULL article @ this LINK:
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20041025-mon.html#anchor

. . .That last article, coming from "Morgan Stanley" I found quite surprising, (coming from THEM) and if you read the full article, you'll find it doesn't paint an any prettier picture, hence my opening in the header. Question is: what's FRIDAY going to look like? :yikes:

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

niteflyer

Oct 26th, 2004, 10:10 AM

Interesting link Lotrfan, and I was predicting we would do what we always do when our economy tanks....but I have always thought it would come AFTER the election. The "Iran scenarios" have been heavily funded in the thought tanks for a couple of years now, its common knowledge around Stanford. I will try to get some info on the funding for these programs....
War with Iran is surely coming and things might not go as planned....Ive been stocking up on basics for about a year now....

lotrfan55345

Oct 27th, 2004, 3:17 PM

Samsam Bakhtiari, Iran's oil minister, has a new website. He has some very interesting insights and predictions.

www.samsambakhtiari.com

He seems to have way to much time on his hands so he answers questions on the Peak Oil Forums (http://www.peakoil.com/forums) . (It's really him since the PO admins e-mailed his official e-mail)

Insights:
http://peakoil.com/fortopic1693.html

Question & Answer:
http://peakoil.com/forum19.html

Bigsky770

Oct 27th, 2004, 3:41 PM

. . .You all may wanna post what it is you are currently paying/but here, (I found out like where my in-laws in Illinois), NOW $2.25.9 per gallon.

Not good. Have also heard word that Europe is getting hit especially hard as well/though I have no current prices to refer to.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

lotrfan55345

Oct 28th, 2004, 3:30 PM

http://www.rte.ie/business/2004/1027/oil.html

The president of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries says he has asked the US to release some of its emergency crude oil supplies.

Understatement of the year. If you take it at surface value, it's basically saying OPEC can't produce any more oil, period.

Here's a bit of speculation. What if part of OPEC's motivation is to get the US to "spend down" its reserves, thereby becoming MORE VULNERABLE to shortages and price increasess later? And are we going to fall for it...?

Either way, this is major news even if the vast majority don't have the slightest clue (yet).

Bush knows about peak (from Simmons) but hasn't said the word. He also knew about the 400 tons (800,000 lbs) of missing explosives in Iraq and didn't say a word about that, even after the story got leaked to the press a few days ago. It's as if his admin can't face bad news.

I think a significant part of the present presidential race is between Bush's optimistic worldview and Kerry's realistic one. Reminds me of Carter vs. Reagan in that way, and hopefully it won't have the same outcome. This time around, we need to do the responsible thing and choose the realist.

See also this link (you may have to copy and paste it into your browser):

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6628748

"Purnomo's request to Washington is unusual as in the past OPEC has regarded government stockpiles as a threat to its own market influence."

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

Mods can move this in the "economy is tanking" thread but I just thought this was really "important"

repentantsinner

Oct 28th, 2004, 8:12 PM

I may be ignorant to the world of big business but does'nt opec, not the US set the price of oil? Seems that if we tapped our reserve we would not be buying their poroduct......untill we were truly desperate. :Bott: :gtfo: :yummm:

lotrfan55345

Oct 28th, 2004, 9:33 PM

The "market" controls the price of oil ... not OPEC.

OPEC countries want to tap the US reserve since that WILL lower the prices - more supply. Since apparently, they themselves are pumping as much as they can -OR- it is a trick to make us more vurnerable to the increasing oil supply decreases... for whatever reason.

High oil prices will plunge the world in to a recession and then that will slow down their economies also, and that would be hard for them since the government in SA, UAE, etc are so rich the populace expects subsidized housing and all that.

Bigsky770

Oct 28th, 2004, 10:51 PM

. . .And it IS important. Laws of "Supply and Demand" apply here, (as you say, [the market] determines the PRICE of crude; "OPEC" sets PRODUCTION quotas). If they produce too-little, demand out-strips supply and the price-per-Bbl. escalates. Conversely, if they produce too much, the oil-market suffers a 'glut' and the pricing-pr-Bbl. can 'bottom-out'. Though are 'strategic reserves ARE sizable, I am still somewhat surprised? @ OPEC's request, they know how important the strategic reserves are to our country, especially during times of 'war'. Additionally, though we also have the largest reserve on earth, IT STILL doesn't represent *THAT MUCH* in comparison to WHAT "OPEC" can produce *IF* "all is well". I take exception to this remark:

Purnomo's request to Washington is unusual as in the past OPEC has regarded government stockpiles as a threat to its own market influence."

I take exception to this because I do NOT see where we can pose a 'threat' to OPEC. WHAT WE HAVE is a "finite" amount, and even if we were to release some of our reserves it would not have an effect for very long ON the market, plus which, YES, we would (as you say) be opening ourselves up to vulnerabilities we may not wish to be exposed to at present in light of the world situation. A release NOW of some of these reserves would just be viewed as a "gesture", (and not a very convincing one, I might add) and there is also that group of politicos which would view this as a 'feelgood' measure initiated by GWB to tilt the election in his favour.

POST-ELECTION (if it should be) that none of the other moderators act upon this before I, I have plans on recombining the threads "USD Tanking? OIL . . " as well as this thread under the one you had started awhile back,: "End of Industrialized Civilization as we know it" because REALLY, ALL OF THIS *IS* "OIL DRIVEN" (the problems) are really all about "Peak Oil" and will eventually be brought under the title you had started.

They are 'seperate' for NOW only insofar as there are so many market indicators/variables within the world economy that need watching now, and I am trying diligently to keep an eye on them all.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

Bigsky770

Oct 29th, 2004, 6:31 AM

Reuters
Dollar Eyes U.S. Outlook, Hits 6-Mth Low

Friday October 29, 6:46 am ET

By Nima Elbagir

LONDON (Reuters) - The dollar hit a six-month low against the yen and drifted near recent eight-month lows versus a rising euro on Friday as investors considered the effect of China's interest rate hike on currencies and the U.S economic outlook.

The euro also got a brief push higher after euro zone data showed inflation in the 12-nation region surged to 2.5 percent in October, further above the European Central Bank's goal, due to soaring oil prices.
And investors were gearing up for U.S. gross domestic product data due at 0830 EDT for hints about the pace of economic recovery.
"The main theme today is continuation of the recent trend, meaning dollar weakness," said Bilal Hafeez, foreign exchange strategist at Deutsche Bank in London.
"The rate rise in China on the margin increases the risk of people revising downward their global growth forecasts, but we aren't revising ours. And it does not tell you anything about revaluation."
At 0525 EDT the dollar was steady on the day against the euro at $1.2744, after hitting day's lows at $1.2773 earlier.
"This (inflation data) has for the first time in a long time raised the prospect of an ECB rate hike," said Chris Gothard, currency analyst at Brown Brothers Harriman in London.
However, bond markets did not show a rise in rate hike expectations from the ECB.
The dollar also hit its lowest level in six months at 105.82 yen, falling about a third of a percent on the day.
LOOKING AT CHINA
Markets were taken by surprise on Thursday when China's central bank announced it would raise rates, in an effort to cool its red-hot economy.
Analysts thought the rate hike was unlikely to affect global economic growth much. But they were divided over the move's implications for the timing of any future revaluation of the Chinese yuan.
Meanwhile, Japanese authorities appeared reluctant to step into the market despite the yen's decline, with many analysts arguing the coming U.S. election was keeping them at bay.
Bank of Japan governor Toshihiko Fukui said recent currency moves were not a risk to the economy.
"His comments suggest we are not seeing the line in the sand yet. Japan is reluctant to intervene before the U.S. election," said Steven Pearson, chief currency strategist at HBOS.
Japan's ministry of finance said it did not intervene in the foreign exchange market in the four weeks ended Oct. 27 despite the yen's rise.
AND THE U.S.
Many analysts argue that it may not matter to currency markets which candidate wins the presidential elections in the U.S. next week.
But they said the market was cautious about the possibility of a drawn-out process to establish the winner, similar to the five-week battle in 2000 which eventually awarded the White House to George W. Bush.
"I think you've got to look at the possibility that like last time we won't get a quick result, and if the process becomes drawn out and confused, people will likely sell the dollar," said Toru Umemoto, research associate at the Global Security Research Center at Keio University.
"But whether Bush or (Senator John) Kerry wins, the outlook is for an economic slowdown and we can expect a weaker dollar," said Umemoto, who expects the dollar to challenge 100 yen and the euro to test $1.30 by year-end.
The latest Reuters/Zogby poll showed Bush leading Democratic rival John Kerry by two points nationally.

the LINK:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/041029/markets_forex_4.html

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

niteflyer

Oct 29th, 2004, 10:36 AM

Correct me if Im wrong because Im no oil economist and a newbie to the theories surrounding peak oil, but what this seems to amount to is this:
OPEC, by asking the USA to dump its reserves on the market is more or less admitting:

1. Oil is being consumed faster than they can pump it

2. The price increase caused by the lack of supply is hurting the worlds enonomic system

3. Opec is unable to do anything about it.

If this is correct it is dramatic evidence that oil is in a very tenacious position, and any further disruption of supply will have immediate and serious consequences for the "world economy"

Bigsky770

Oct 29th, 2004, 11:14 AM

OPEC, by asking the USA to dump its reserves on the market is more or less admitting:

1. Oil is being consumed faster than they can pump it

2. The price increase caused by the lack of supply is hurting the worlds enonomic system

3. Opec is unable to do anything about it.

. . .The scary thing here is, you may be right (they're just loathe to admit it!). . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :eek:

lotrfan55345

Nov 1st, 2004, 7:53 PM

I suggest after the election period we just make a new thread with selected material (that we will just copy, paste and post). The old PO threads are full of junk that most of us would rather not see again.

What do you think?

Bigsky770

Nov 2nd, 2004, 8:59 PM

. . .Kevin, I did consider carefully your idea about "Just starting a new 'Peak Oil' thread", the reason why I thought this way is better was because:

. . .I feel it's just as important to know "where we're going as where we have been", the thinking here is that it's an advantage to the topic to keep it as a 'timeline' that is, the events in chronological order so that we can maintain the salient features as a reference. Hell, I know I'm not slapping myself with any 'kudos' here in light of my past predictions going as badly as they have in the 'timing'. It's no biggie to me, said it before and I'll say it again: I'd MUCH RATHER be WRONG on this score than "RIGHT", :D so, I'll just pull-up a chair and sit myself down, and have that helping of 'humble pie'. . . Got Milk?

Heh. . .(Oh well. . . .) Joe Bigsky770) :vbroll:

Golgo 13

Dec 22nd, 2004, 10:16 PM

Some research I've compiled from various forums, news articles, geologists, and organizations:

Airline's bankruptcy filing cites higher fuel costs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6027440/)

In mining lore there is a story about miners placing a canary in the mineshaft to test the safety of its atmosphere. If the bird lives, the air's breathable and you're probably going to be ok. If the bird dies, get out quick. In today's world, the airline industry is that figurative canary in the mineshaft. I think the peak-oil crisis, as it pertains to the economy, will start here. I think it is here.

Jet fuel prices, which are about 16 percent of airline costs, have surged 52 percent in the last 12 months, to $1.267 a gallon from 83.3 cents. Many companies use financial trading strategies that hedge their fuel expenses and, where possible, slap fuel surcharges on customers' bills. Hedging effectively enables them to lock in prearranged prices for fuel, so that they are not hurt if prices jump above those levels. Some distressed airlines, needing the money for other expenses, have less than half of their fuel requirements hedged, leaving them more vulnerable to the high market prices. Delta has no hedges in place, and in the second quarter its fuel costs soared 54 percent from a year earlier.

The International Air Transport Association estimates a $1 per barrel rise in jet-fuel prices costs the airline industry $1 billion per year. Several of the large, conventional carriers such as United Airlines and Delta, already were in dire financial straits before this year. United, the nation's second-largest airline, has been operating under court-supervised bankruptcy protection since 2002. United sought a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the government, and was turned down. Arlington-based US Airways, which already received a $1 billion loan guarantee, says it is trying to avoid a return to bankruptcy. Delta has said bankruptcy is an option unless it can eliminate its losses.

Executive Travel Associates (http://www.exectravel.com/showdetail.asp?id=1717)

"Unless fuel prices abate, or the revenue environment improves, we will have to furlough employees and seek wage and benefit concessions," Bethune warns. "We may also have to reduce our pension funding."

United has already stopped paying into its pension accounts. If the other airlines follow suit to stay competitive, that could send huge ripples through the economy. If United Airlines defaults, (or, oil gods forbid, goes bankrupt) the effect on the economy is nearly incalculable. No matter what else happens, in five years time, two or three major airlines are going to be gone. United heads the list, followed by Delta and US Airways.

The U.S. airlines have pleaded for President Bush to stop diverting oil from the market to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time of record jet-fuel prices. Any investor will tell you that you buy low, sell high. Unfortunately, the government is doing just the opposite by accelerating the rate at which it's filling the SPR at a time when oil prices are sky high. Well, we know why they are doing that, the price is low compared to what it will be.

The domino effect of job loss will cascade through the economy. If the government bails them out it will cost billions of taxpayer dollars, much like the S & L fiasco of the 1980's.

Soaring Fuel Costs Undermining Airlines (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/041028/airlines_labor_vs_fuel_6.html)

Even as big airlines are beginning to successfully rein in labor costs -- $1 billion in annual concessions from Delta's pilots being the latest example -- soaring fuel expenses are essentially negating their effects, leaving many of the carriers in perilous financial shape.

"It's like they're all treading water, but they've got 100 pound weights around their necks," said airline consultant Robert W. Mann of Port Washington, N.Y. "You can only do it for so long."

'Fiscal timebomb' for US airlines (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3748464.stm)

For U.S. airlines to break even, oil prices must remain below $31 a barrel.

Most of these airlines are doomed. Using Chapter 11 to continue trading is just causing good money to be thrown after bad. The employees now realise that the only choice they have is either the quick death of liquidation or the slow death of a thousand pay cuts. I am not at all surprised that the older pilots are cashing in their retirement chips and trying to save what money they can.

The CEO's who continue to run these businesses knowing that they have no chance of success are simply immoral. They are robbing investors. I assume that their reason for keeping the airlines going so that they can continue to draw their own inflated remuneration. At least if the companies were wound up they would find themselves out of a job along with everyone else.

Canada was responsible for 15% of our natural gas, which is half of their production. Well they recently peaked and cut us off.

Opec agrees to cut oil production (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4084989.stm)

Maybe it's not because Saudi Arabia believes that prices will fall that they are cutting production. What if they realized that they are unable to maintain their surge production and want to mask this under an OPEC policy?

Iran, Venezuela and Indonesia are not even producing up to their quota's. These were also the countries which were pressing the production cut.

I think there is something seriously wrong within OPEC. Since the OPEC manifest does not allow the production ceiling of a single country to be raised or lowered, they want to lower the production ceiling in order to hide the fact that they are nearing depletion.

The list of countries which can still increase production is becoming terribly short, whereas the list with declining countries is growing fast. Moreover the few countries which can still increase production seem to be reluctant to do so.

It has just occured to me that the true test will be when the oil price starts to edge over $50 again and OPEC are again under pressure to increase production.

If this increase in production is not forthcoming then can we assume the January production decrease was because of 'unsustainable' production levels? Could we be on the downslope of the production curve?

Trouble in the World's Largest Oil Field-Ghawar (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm)

^More from geologist Glenn Morton.

It turns out my fears have come true. The have been flooding the wells on Saudi Arabia. For some time now, it would appear.

Today the world produces 82.5 million barrels per day which means that Ghawar produces 5.5 percent of the world's daily production. Should it decline, there would be major problems. As Ghawar goes, so goes Saudi Arabia.

The field was brought on line in 1951.

I have noted elsewhere that the data I am being told by engineers who have actually worked on Ghawar, that this decade will see it's peak. (Morton, 2004 PSCF in press). Others have noted how the percentage of water brought up with the oil has been growing on Ghawar. There are published reports that Ghawar has from 30-55% water cut. This means that about half the fluids brought up the well are water. Today the decline rate is 8%.

Cumulative production from the field is 55 billion barrels. In 1975 Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and Texaco estimated that the ultimate recovery from the field would be 60 billion barrels.

What is the future of Ghawar and Saudi production? It is not good.

"All production comes from 'very old fields', with no major exploration success since the 1960s, and almost every field has high and rising water cut.

"Saudi Aramco is injecting a staggering 7 million barrels of sea water per day back into Ghawar, the world's largest oilfield, in order to prop up pressure. [b]It accounts for 30% of Saudi oil reserves and up to 70% of daily output." "Doubts grow about Saudi As Global Swing Producer,"

Remember these facts, people:

- Ghawar supplies 5.5% of worlds daily oil production.

- Ghawar supplies up to 70% of Saudi daily oil production.

- The average life of an oil well is 50 years. Ghawar started producing in 1951. Look at the numbers.

- Ghawar is declining produntion at 8% per year and that number is increasing every year. Ghawar production numbers could drop off a cliff any month now due to water injection.

- In 1975, estimated ultimate recovery from the field would be 60 billion barrels. Cumulative production from the field so far is 55 billion barrels.

Golgo 13

Dec 22nd, 2004, 10:17 PM

Oil & Gas (http://www.bizjournals.com/industries/energy/oil_gas/2004/04/12/houston_newscolumn1.html?page=2)

Saudi's "king" of oil fields, Ghawar, is the world's largest oil field. Wildcat discoveries there from 1948 to 1952 proved reserves estimated at 170 billion barrels of oil in place and 60 billion barrels recoverable. Those numbers remained unchanged in Aramco's 1975 reserve estimates. Ghawar has accounted for 55 percent to 60 percent of all Saudi oil produced. If these numbers are correct, Ghawar's oil is 90 percent gone.

Simmons points out that 20 percent of the world's oil supply comes from 14 fields that are an average of 60 years old. New giant oil field discoveries, he says, ended in the late 1960s to early 1970s.

Remember, an oil well's average lifespan is 50 years. Most of Saudi Arabia's largest producing oil fields could collapse at any time.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Ghawar has peaked. It peaked 2 decades ago, it started declining, and they started to inject water to delay the decline and maintain production, increasing the overall recovery rate from about 60% to now, which is so far 88%.

The fact is, the Ghawar reserve estimate is 60 billion barrels, so far they've produced around 55 billion. Either some massive shock is coming very soon, or the reserve estimate was wrong, and it's actually larger than stated. I think the latter can be ruled out by virtue of the fact that most the oil is turning to cut -- the 7 million barrels of seawater per day they've been flooding the wells with to raise the oil.

Ghawar is in terminal decline and nearing death.

When Ghawar goes offline, that's it. It's officially happened then. Saudi Arabia will have peaked as an oil province, and therefore categorically the world itself will have peaked. This is bad fucking news.

Assuming that the ultimate recovery figure for Ghawar is 60 billion barrels, then it should fail in late 2006/early 2007 if oil continues to be extracted at 1.8 billion barrels a year. Unless another Ghawar or several North Sea-sized oil fields are up and running, the global economy will be slammed into a recession.

When that happens, I predict Peak Oil and its implications will be seared into the mainstream public consciousness, the same way satelite photos showing the Antartic ozone hole highlighted the threat of ozone depletion. The effect of Ghawar's demise will be immediate and significant. No amount of spin can cover up a sudden 70% drop in Saudi production.

When Ghawar shuts down, the other wells will be extracted from much faster in an effort to pick up some of the slack since the big daddy king of Saudi Arabia went belly-up. That is going to accelerate depletion on these already mature wells, and the individual wells will be headed toward their peak capacities even faster, assuming they aren't already there, and then terminally decline.

If these other wells start terminally declining, then Saudi Arabia will cease to become a swing oil producer altogether. If you've been following the thread, then it's unnecessary for me to illustrate the ramifications of that happening.

lotrfan55345

Dec 23rd, 2004, 5:45 PM

Yeah, I think when Ghawar peaks, the world peaks.

Although, the Bush/Cheney team may somehow convice the American public that the cause for the oil shortages is the "terrorists", thus causing support for another liberation of an oil-rich country like, say, Iran or SA.

It may happen like that one story I posted but I cant find at the moment.

Golgo 13

Dec 24th, 2004, 3:47 AM

I think they might organize another terrorist attack, of islamic appearance, to happen on US soil; which will rally more support for Bush. He'll renege on his 'all volunteer military' oath, call a draft and organize it using the postmaster general and all the volunteers that have already been put on the selective service draft boards, coincidentally (not like they ever saw this coming, of course [/sarcasm]), and you'll see alot more men and women dying overseas in conflict.

Bigsky770

Mar 31st, 2005, 7:08 PM

. . .Blech. :eww:

Oil prices surge after $105-a-barrel forecast

Research report forecasts dramatically costlier crude and suggests a 'super spike' -- fueled by 1970s-style inflation -- could send prices well into triple digits.

By Reuters

Oil markets have entered a "super-spike'' period that could see 1970s-style price surges as high as $105 a barrel, investment bank Goldman Sachs said in a research report Thursday that sent oil futures spinning.

U.S. light crude settled up $1.41 to $55.40 a barrel after peaking at $56.10, within $1.50 of the $57.60 record high struck on March 17. Benchmark Brent futures jumped $2.20 to $54.29 a barrel.

Oil prices have climbed around 25% this year as signals that rapid demand growth in emerging economies China and India will strain world supply ignited heavy buying from big-money funds.

Goldman's Global Investment Research note raised the bank's 2005 and 2006 New York Mercantile Exchange crude price forecasts to $50 and $55 respectively, from $41 and $40.

These forecasts sit at the top of a table of predictions from 25 analysts, consultants and government bodies surveyed by Reuters.

"We believe oil markets may have entered the early stages of what we have referred to as a "super spike'' period -- a multi-year trading band of oil prices high enough to meaningfully reduce energy consumption and recreate a spare capacity cushion only after which will lower energy prices return,'' Goldman's analysts wrote.

The analysts said resilient demand had led them to revise their super-spike range to $50-$105 per barrel from $50-$80 previously, noting strength in oil demand and economic growth in the United States and China especially.

U.S. oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange have averaged $50.03 per barrel so far in 2005.

Goldman Sachs is the biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely-watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.

Goldman pointed out thin spare capacity in the energy supply chain, and long response times for bringing on supply additions, as well as robust demand in the United States and in developing heavyweights China and India, despite the recent rapid increase in energy costs.

Shades of the 1970s
Goldman said the current oil market environment looked more like that seen in the 1970s -- when oil prices spiked dramatically following the Arab oil embargoes on supply to the West and Iran's revolution.

Rest of the story @ this LINK:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P113712.asp

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770) :eek:

lotrfan55345

Apr 1st, 2005, 1:42 PM

Oil has spiked to $200.

http://bloomberg.com/energy/aprflsday

Haliburton

Apr 1st, 2005, 2:19 PM

Oil has spiked to $200.

http://bloomberg.com/energy/aprflsday
Link doesnt work please fix

lotrfan55345

Apr 1st, 2005, 4:21 PM

Oil has now spiked to a whopping $1000

http://bloomberg.com/energy/aprfoolsday

lotrfan55345

Apr 1st, 2005, 4:49 PM

http://corporate.bmo.com/HarrisNesbitt/bresource/basicpoint/default.asp?id=4887

Gwahar has peaked, and is set for fast decline.

Gwahar is the world's largest oil field, and accounts for a large chunk of Saudi oil .

OH, and the "super-spike" report is now leaked and available here (http://www.oilcast.com/pdfs/superspike.pdf) .

cjpluss

Apr 9th, 2005, 5:37 AM

Dammit! You all are confusing me with all this science, curves and charts! Oil HAS to peak at some point since they dont make dinosaurs anymore. :argue: :Bott:
lol. Anyway, eventually, when peak oil occurs, humans will HAVE to convert to hydrogen cell cars, solar cars, electric powered etc. Even if there is still oil around, the prices will hit £2 maybe £3 a litre, and petrol cars wont be economic anymore. The problem lies in things like plastic, one of the most used materials around us today. We MUST find an alternative to it or will will hit problems.

midnight21

May 29th, 2005, 1:39 AM

Bigsky770

May 29th, 2005, 2:09 AM

. . .Just a word to let you know, your post has not been lost, only moved and merged with that topic already in place, as this applies to "Peak Oil" and we've been discussing this one for quite a bit of time. I've not seen that particular news item as of late, so I wanted to take this opportunity to thank-you for reviving this thread, as I believe (myself) that the problems here are many and manifest [that is to say] about to "Bite us in the Arse". . .:eek:

Great to have ones here like yourself/thanks for the "Head's Up" on a really great article! :2thumbs:

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

128shot

May 30th, 2005, 12:21 PM

who's up for forming a post oil militia with me?

please, I could use all the members i can get. Then, maybe, we can bike to centeral Canada and live our days in relative peace...

cjpluss

Jun 1st, 2005, 2:29 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-28-oil-shortage_x.htm?csp=26&RM_Exclude=Juno

This news scares me. especially when i keep having reocurring fragmented dreams about an upcoming nuclear war...
Near the end it goes on about renewable sources being a bad idea and that we should start turning coal and natural gas into a comustable liquid. WTF?! We have the perfect opportunity to cut pollution by billions of tonnes and this idiot wants us to use another limited supply, non-renewable, highly pollutive energy source? In 100 years we will hit the same problem of peak coal and peak natural gas and then what? Are we gonna use sea water? oxygen? Then we'll run out of that and we'll be dead. When we start running out of oil, we NEED to use clean renewable sources to run them or else we put future generations in an even worse position as we are going to be in the next 20 years

128shot

Jun 1st, 2005, 3:13 PM

Nuclear war theorists are wacky...

antiwar.com has posted something interesting on Bush's nuclear weapons development plan and that an "accidental nuclear launch can happy and is a higher probabilty than should be."

Mezurashi

Jun 5th, 2005, 7:30 AM

y'know, for a bunch of people who are constantly 'questioning' media sources, many have jumped onto this latest Junk Science bandwagon...

Peak Oil has been a hypothetical threat used as a bludgeon against the demanders by OPEC (the supplier) since before the 1970's. I remember as a kid that we had Cheaper Gas in Canada for a time (which seems pretty fucking unbelievable these days but it's true) and that many weekender Yanks would run through Sweetgrass, Montana to get to cheap Albertan gas in Coutts. Meanwhile OPEC was flexing its muscles, Jimmy Carter was being painted into his corner of notoriety and so forth.

Peak Oil Production was once thought so imminent that Bill Moyer (or someone like that) had a two part talk show dealing with the possible collapse of civilization back in 1982.

ask yourself, "Who is in charge of figuring all this shit out and who writes their cheques?"

then ask yourself, "If petroleum for fuel production stopped would that mean the end of the petroleum industry?"

*hint - plastics, paints, volatiles, fuel cell components, Vaseline, etc.*

methinks that many have fallen prey to the hype and planned counter reactions - thank you for playing into Big Oil's Plan... (lol, just kidding, as if those guys have the ability to plan...)

2cool4stats

Jun 5th, 2005, 9:24 AM

Peak Oil has been a hypothetical threat used as a bludgeon against the demanders by OPEC (the supplier) since before the 1970's. methinks that many have fallen prey to the hype and planned counter reactions - thank you for playing into Big Oil's Plan...Perhaps it was a hypothetical threat then. But as for now and especially in the coming years, it will continue to solidify as a problem. Thing is, the world's population back in the 70's (around 3.8+ billion) is far less than today's (over 6+ billion). This Peak Oil crisis isn't some conspiracy theory in which we can try to question its authenticity. This crisis is very real because it involves the rate of petroleum production being out-paced by the population growth of industrialized nations. This means that even if you disregard all the hype and planned counter reactions concerning said crisis, you still cannot deny the fact that the world's population is continuing to increase. Of course, the factual perennial increase of the world's population isn't hypothetical.

Mezurashi

Jun 5th, 2005, 5:35 PM

Perhaps it was a hypothetical threat then. But as for now and especially in the coming years, it will continue to solidify as a problem. Thing is, the world's population back in the 70's (around 3.8+ billion) is far less than today's (over 6+ billion). This Peak Oil crisis isn't some conspiracy theory in which we can try to question its authenticity. This crisis is very real because it involves the rate of petroleum production being out-paced by the population growth of industrialized nations. This means that even if you disregard all the hype and planned counter reactions concerning said crisis, you still cannot deny the fact that the world's population is continuing to increase. Of course, the factual perennial increase of the world's population isn't hypothetical.

I appreciate your sincerity on this matter, especially since I lack sincerity in most forms, but I must say that your arguments, though valid and sound, were the same ones I heard back then, more recently and now.

yes to everything you pointed out, but the one unknown factor is the ACTUAL LEVEL OF PETROLEUM RESERVES. This information is classified and protected with even more security than surrounds Fissionable Material (don't believe me? just Try and find accurate, up to date and verifiable info about this).

Within 6 months of any such 'Peak Oil' hype there have been massive, world-wide increases in demand, stockpiling and the cost-per-barrel of light sweet crude (the kind used for fuels). yet the other forms of petroleum don't feel that level of pinch and play. gee, I wonder why? and within three years of Peak Oil hype the whole issue just fizzles out from lack of further interest or cataclysmic side effects.

You're all being manipulated into helping spread the hype, which then makes it easier for the Fuel Conglomerates to play their Market Research games to determine How Much people are Willing to pay for their gas. the more fear there is the more sacrifices people are willing to make (see: the United States Of America Post 9-11 for an example).

there has been a 'crisis' for as long as there has been an OPEC. and isn't it interesting that BEFORE the Peak Oil 'crisis' of the 21st Century there had been a savage and growing world wide opposition to further degredation of protected lands in order to secure more petroleum reserves, yet now that everyone's afraid the Environmental Concerns don't get as much media play as they used to.

can you see the obvious? ask yourself, If I was in charge and wanted to create an atmosphere of fear in order to drive prices up, how would I do it?

I realize I cannot change minds on this, the Peak Oil thing was a 'religious' thing long before Environmentalism became a Church instead of a movement. so please, don't assume everything negative or positive is true, assume you're being manipulated by those who have spent their whole lives learning how to do so...

and now I settle back into my drugged stupor...

lotrfan55345

Jun 5th, 2005, 7:48 PM

This information is classified and protected with even more security than surrounds Fissionable Material (don't believe me? just Try and find accurate, up to date and verifiable info about this).

USGS peak oil dat. most people consider it a "accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable" source.
http://img258.echo.cx/img258/53/usgsoilforecast4fh.png
Link (PDF)

http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-320/of00-320.pdf

lotrfan55345

Jun 5th, 2005, 7:55 PM

Oh, and here is Matt Simmons, Dubya's energy advisor and owner of the largest energy investment/banking company on this planet... Guess what he has to say about the peak oil issue? *surprise*

http://www.peakoil.net/MatSim.html
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/SearchResult.aspx?ID=870
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/SearchResult.aspx?ID=897
http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/SearchResult.aspx?ID=905
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/238338932.shtml

A peak oil link from priceton:
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/the-peak.html
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

Some random ones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777413.stm

Iran's oil minister Q+A chat/e-mail sessions:
http://peakoil.com/forum19.html

His website/blog about peak oil:
http://www3.telus.net/public/a6a20277/

... but Mezarushi... is your philosophy, "because they were wrone once, they will ALWAYS be wrong" ? Because I don't belive that oil will ALWAYS renew itself for our consuming plesure.

lotrfan55345

Jun 5th, 2005, 8:09 PM

y'know, for a bunch of people who are constantly 'questioning' media sources, many have jumped onto this latest Junk Science bandwagon...

I don't do that a lot... the only "questionable" news source that I critisize a lot is Fox News and such.

Peak Oil has been a hypothetical threat used as a bludgeon against the demanders by OPEC (the supplier) since before the 1970's

The person who came up with the Peak Oil theory wasn't even connected with OPEC.

So Iran's civil war was merely a front to raise oil prices?
[quote]
Peak Oil Production was once thought so imminent that Bill Moyer (or someone like that) had a two part talk show dealing with the possible collapse of civilization back in 1982.

I have never heard of this Bill Moyer... but there are many many radioshows/vidoes/movies available on p2p networks concerning peak oil.

ask yourself, "Who is in charge of figuring all this shit out and who writes their cheques?"

The United States government for the USGS?

then ask yourself, "If petroleum for fuel production stopped would that mean the end of the petroleum industry?"

I don't think you can merely stop production for fuel but not other applications?

Within 6 months of any such 'Peak Oil' hype there have been massive, world-wide increases in demand, stockpiling and the cost-per-barrel of light sweet crude (the kind used for fuels).
I havent noticed.

yet the other forms of petroleum don't feel that level of pinch and play. gee, I wonder why? and within three years of Peak Oil hype the whole issue just fizzles out from lack of further interest or cataclysmic side effects.
When oil prices go up, oil-based products seem to go up along with the fuel... Atleast in my local stores.

You're all being manipulated into helping spread the hype
Damn... they even payed princeton to have their website host a peak oil section?

which then makes it easier for the Fuel Conglomerates to play their Market Research games to determine How Much people are Willing to pay for their gas.
Anything. People in the United States don't really have a choice now do they? Since it is only in other countries where urban and suburban and even rural areas have public transportation that works and actual city planning, not just sprawl.

can you see the obvious?

No.

Mezurashi

Jun 6th, 2005, 7:27 AM

hey, interesting refuting there, but the problem remains the same. You are Using Information Provided By Government or Government Backed sources - NOT info from the Saudi's or the Kuwaiti's.

How do you know for sure there were 'ripple effects' economically? didn't you find some nice USA TODAY style Infographic to make it easy and in nice colours too?

and in the 80's there was no Internet p2p chat rooms. I'd say grow up, except it's obvious that's exactly what you need to do to help you with your perspective.

you young people today, so gullible and ready to believe as long as you Trust the source...

remember you've been programmed and those who think they are free of it are the most in thrall - there is an Illusion Of Freedom being generated in North America and this is all part of it.

Princeton involved in a US Gov't backed conspiracy? Naaah, impossible (except say, when it comes to fissionable material back in the 1930's - but that's an aberration, right?)

I'd go on but I dont have the time or patience to refute your refute - I'd suggest reading it over again and looking at yourself in a mirror and asking if you really believe what you just told me. if you do, well, it takes all kinds to llive in this world, I guess ...

2cool4stats

Jun 6th, 2005, 10:05 AM

yes to everything you pointed out, but the one unknown factor is the ACTUAL LEVEL OF PETROLEUM RESERVES. This information is classified and protected with even more security than surrounds Fissionable Material (don't believe me? just Try and find accurate, up to date and verifiable info about this).
I'm aware of the unknown factor concerning the actual levels of petroleum reserves being classified from the general public. Russia might be suspect to this because Putin has actually motioned a federal ordinance a couple of years ago that manipulates Russian state secrecy. However, the intention (according to the British) was to conceal the inadequate amount of Russian oil reserves in the regional Barents Sea, rather than as a concealment of an excessive amount (which I believe is your base implication).

You're all being manipulated into helping spread the hype, which then makes it easier for the Fuel Conglomerates to play their Market Research games to determine How Much people are Willing to pay for their gas. the more fear there is the more sacrifices people are willing to make (see: the United States Of America Post 9-11 for an example).
I believe that there is an unmistakable difference between spreading hype and being aware of the corporate world around us. In my opinion, hype involves the indulgent dissemination of facts and fallacies which in turn fuels mass hysteria, whereas being aware of such issues is beneficial to an already weary modern society. Not all who are recipients of media hypes are being manipulated because the thing is, people are responsible to themselves on how they go about interpreting such information. It is up to them whether they are willing to allow paranoia concerning the Peak Oil problem or the manipulative tactics of corporate elites run their everyday lives. Certainly, paranoia and hype work both ways.

remember you've been programmed and those who think they are free of it are the most in thrall - there is an Illusion Of Freedom being generated in North America and this is all part of it.
Yes perhaps what you're saying might actually be true and I actually wouldn't be surprised if that was the case in our continent today. However, excessive fear for this potential fact may very well concede to the affects of hype and paranoia as well. Of course, it's also your choice to conceptualize this opinion of mine as a result of that social programming you might be hyping about.

lotrfan55345

Jun 6th, 2005, 4:45 PM

hey, interesting refuting there, but the problem remains the same. You are Using Information Provided By Government or Government Backed sources - NOT info from the Saudi's or the Kuwaiti's.

I'm sure Ali Samsam has connections with the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's... if he is Iran's oil minister and OPEC representative... Why does he think like this?

How do you know for sure there were 'ripple effects' economically? didn't you find some nice USA TODAY style Infographic to make it easy and in nice colours too?

There is no doubt that oil won't cause economic ramafications. If the price goes high enough the economy will tank. But I don't remember what this is getting at?

and in the 80's there was no Internet p2p chat rooms. I'd say grow up, except it's obvious that's exactly what you need to do to help you with your perspective.

Chat rooms? Programs. But there are many radio shows about peak oil ON THE RADIO too.

you young people today, so gullible and ready to believe as long as you Trust the source...

What do you trust in? Just random stuff that comes up in your head and then say "Yes! Oil IS infinite!". How/when do you think oil will peak? Never?

remember you've been programmed and those who think they are free of it are the most in thrall - there is an Illusion Of Freedom being generated in North America and this is all part of it.

I've been programmed...sweet. Can people program a scientific calculator in my brain so hard math problems won't befuddle me anymore? Yes there is an illusion of freedom. What does that have to do with anything?

I'd go on but I dont have the time or patience to refute your refute - I'd suggest reading it over again and looking at yourself in a mirror and asking if you really believe what you just told me. if you do, well, it takes all kinds to llive in this world, I guess ...

Yes. I do believe oil is finite. Thank you.

Mezurashi

Jun 7th, 2005, 7:19 AM

**Sigh** try to wake people up and what do you get...

LOTRFan - read my posts CAREFULLY and see that many assumptions you've made of my assumptions are wrong.

Where do I make any Value Graded Statements about the Finite/Infinite level of Petroleum Reserves? Do I EVER say one or the other? NO!! I said that I QUESTION the VALIDITY of the INFORMATION ABOUT the RESERVES.

this is just one point, but since you seem to be unable to read and assimilate information in the same 24 hour period I will allow you a few more weeks to UNDERSTAND what you've read. but thanks for Trying to discuss, at least you're making an effort, keep it up and someday you might be good at it (or at least able to follow the point beyond the modern 2 sentence memory buffer).

2Cool - once again I restate that the best place to hide a needle is not within a haystack, but within a stack of similar needles. your somewhat cavalier response reagrding the individuals place within the structure of the hype worries me however.

The generation of the Hype itself IS the goal in many cases as far as Petroleum goes ... the mass manipulation of the public is usually quite blunt and open but there are also times when Big Oil can get positively scary and subtle.

Check out the timing between the Beginning of the Current round of Peak Oil Debate (I speak of the Elevated Debate, not the in-between simmer) and the Iraq War and track this against the recent fluctuations in fuel oil costs vs. Other petroleum product costs (as posted for public consumption and available through your Local gas dealers). AND I DON'T MEAN FINDING A SIMPLE INFOGRAPHIC BUT FINDING UNRELATED FACTS AND USING CROSS-CORRELATION.

See, the issue here isn't the so-called Peak Oil Crisis but the fact that the Information Being Provided is in and of itself Suspect.

And unlike LotrFan I cannot assume that what I read on the Net is true, what I'm told by my mommy and daddy is always true or that Princeton University would NEVER collaborate with the US Gov't to help spread disinfo to the public (yet we can easily mistrust Net sources, our parents are liars and Harvard is home to the Skull and Crossbones Conspiracy).

the level of selective ignorance being displayed arund the Peak Oil thing shows me their tactics are working just fine - and this also concerns me.

2cool4stats

Jun 7th, 2005, 3:38 PM

Extraction 1:

Check out the timing between the Beginning of the Current round of Peak Oil Debate (I speak of the Elevated Debate, not the in-between simmer) and the Iraq War and track this against the recent fluctuations in fuel oil costs vs. Other petroleum product costs (as posted for public consumption and available through your Local gas dealers). AND I DON'T MEAN FINDING A SIMPLE INFOGRAPHIC BUT FINDING UNRELATED FACTS AND USING CROSS-CORRELATION.
Extraction 2:

The generation of the Hype itself IS the goal in many cases as far as Petroleum goes ... the mass manipulation of the public is usually quite blunt and open but there are also times when Big Oil can get positively scary and subtle.
Extraction 3:
I realize I cannot change minds on this, the Peak Oil thing was a 'religious' thing long before Environmentalism became a Church instead of a movement. so please, don't assume everything negative or positive is true, assume you're being manipulated by those who have spent their whole lives learning how to do so...
Point taken on the first statement, because I highly recommend for anyone to reciprocate with full discretion this Peak Oil issue alongside indirect facts. I for one am not too sold into relying on just the obvious information given right and forth unto the public. However, I mentioned with full discretion because indirect facts can also be assets for a highly manipulative corporate world as well (to counter your 2nd statement). That's exactly why we should never presume anything at this stage (note: you clearly advocate presumption and selective ignorance in Extraction 3). Almost all "facts" whether they be made obvious or indirect and subtle are liable to manipulation. This next statement of your's is an example of a presumption.

Extraction 4:

You're all being manipulated into helping spread the hype, which then makes it easier for the Fuel Conglomerates to play their Market Research games to determine How Much people are Willing to pay for their gas. the more fear there is the more sacrifices people are willing to make (see: the United States Of America Post 9-11 for an example).
Why is this a presumption? Well, that's because there seems to be no concrete "evidence" to support that statement of your's (of course "evidence" itself goes out the window in this discussion since you're questioning evidence itself; let me quote you -- "See, the issue here isn't the so-called Peak Oil Crisis but the fact that the Information Being Provided is in and of itself Suspect." So this means that even if you wish to counter my opinion regarding Extraction 4 by providing proof, you would be subject to that level of selective ignorance you mentioned in this recent conclusion of your's:

Recent conclusion:

the level of selective ignorance being displayed arund the Peak Oil thing shows me their tactics are working just fine - and this also concerns me.
Speaking of selective ignorance, let me go back to Extraction 3. Now isn't this a clear example of that? In my opinion, it appears to be explicit.

Extraction 3:

so please, don't assume everything negative or positive is true, assume you're being manipulated by those who have spent their whole lives learning how to do so...
Selective ignorance works both ways and a line must be drawn in order to balance doubts and suspicions with circumspective research, otherwise the purpose of research itself becomes defeated. You cannot simply presume and conclude that the given facts are false (which I believe is one of your base conclusions since I did point out a very clear presumption of your's) and expect to be exempt from being selectively ignorant concerning this Peak Oil subject.

See in a sense we both share a similar perspective regarding this Peak Oil issue and that is, we both have doubts about the authenticity of the information made available to the public. However, the difference here is that you presume the Peak Oil crisis is a corporate sham whereas I am only aware of the those possibilities. It's exactly why I wish to reiterate this statement of mine.

Not all who are recipients of media hypes are being manipulated because the thing is, people are responsible to themselves on how they go about interpreting such information. It is up to them whether they are willing to allow paranoia concerning the Peak Oil problem or the manipulative tactics of corporate elites run their everyday lives.. Certainly, paranoia and hype work both ways.
Don't get me wrong however, because I do recognize the efficacy of your main point. But this doesn't necessarily mean that I should presume that the given information in this thread or in any venue for Peak Oil discussions is false.

lotrfan55345

Jun 7th, 2005, 3:38 PM

**Sigh** try to wake people up and what do you get...

Very cranky people. People don't like you waking them up.

LOTRFan - read my posts CAREFULLY and see that many assumptions you've made of my assumptions are wrong.

Sure the assumtions are wrong, but when IS oil going to "run out" because it WILL eventually. You said it was "wrong" in the 80s, now you are saying it's "wrong". US oil DID peak in '79.

Where do I make any Value Graded Statements about the Finite/Infinite level of Petroleum Reserves?
Well since you assume this is wrong and previous oil peaks were wrong (or were they?) When IS oil depletion going to be "right". I would think OPEC and others would OVERSTATE their reserves to make a false impression of security to attract further investment in their respective countries (and territories). Many oil analysts do think that Saudi Arabian and other oil reserves are overstated, especially GHAWAR. Or are they being PAYED for this "conspiracy" also?

DO YOU EVER THINK OIL WILL PEAK, AND IF SO, WHEN?

Do I EVER say one or the other? NO!! I said that I QUESTION the VALIDITY of the INFORMATION ABOUT the RESERVES.

What causes you to QUESTION the validity of these reserves, and that they are understated? What IS a valid source? What if that oil reserves are actually smaller than stated? Or is that just IMPOSSIBLE because it doesn't fit into your scenario? Since you question these oil reserves so much, WHAT IF THEY ARE OVERESTIMATING OIL RESERVES AND GLOBAL OIL PRODUCTION WILL PEAK AND FALL INTO A CLIFF TOMOROW!! QUESTION THE OIL RESERVES! QUESTION!! How DO we know that there is ACTUALLY more MILK than stated?! What if it is just ALL a GRAND CONSPIRACY to make us PAY MORE. Please just IGNORE all of the many conspiracy-induced studies and mesures about oil reserves.

this is just one point, but since you seem to be unable to read and assimilate information in the same 24 hour period I

I have VERY bad reading comprehension... It takes me YEARS to fully understand a full sentence.

thanks for Trying to discuss, at least you're making an effort, keep it up and someday you might be good at it (or at least able to follow the point beyond the modern 2 sentence memory buffer).
so THATS why I have problems.

ask yourself, "Who is in charge of figuring all this shit out and who writes their cheques?"

Who is giving them their cheques? Investors primarily from 1st world countries attracted by the supposed VASTNESS of their (most likely overestimated) reserves.

then ask yourself, "If petroleum for fuel production stopped would that mean the end of the petroleum industry?"
Why yes. They would swtich over to another energy source (hopefully not another fossil fuel) or go bankrupt.

See, the issue here isn't the so-called Peak Oil Crisis but the fact that the Information Being Provided is in and of itself Suspect.

Where do you get (or assume) your "unsuspected" information about current oil reserves.

And unlike LotrFan I cannot assume that what I read on the Net is true

When did I say that?

what I'm told by my mommy and daddy is always true or that Princeton University would NEVER collaborate with the US Gov't to help spread disinfo to the public
Wow you obviously know nothing about me... nor my beliefs with information from "mommy" and "daddy" (did you believe anything your respercted guardians said?).

(yet we can easily mistrust Net sources, our parents are liars and Harvard is home to the Skull and Crossbones Conspiracy).

I do mistrust many internet sources. Specially you. Our parents ARE liars, your were most likely big ones as you seem to REALLY hate parental advice and information. My parents once told me that Santa Claus was real. But I found out it was all a marketing ploy for buisnisses to make money.

And how did it get from princeton to harvard. Many people know about Skull and Bones... What does THAT have to do with anything. Local churches are somehwhat involved with the freemasons... they are sucking our donation money arent they?!

the level of selective ignorance being displayed arund the Peak Oil thing shows me their tactics are working just fine - and this also concerns me

The "there is no problem with oil...it's not peaking" people (like you) were all tricked by a government conspiracy to control the masses into thinking nothing is going wrong so they still hold and do their socioeconomic duties and the governments still keeps and gets more power and money. Modern industrial civilization will collapse and the top players are accumulating money for their post-peak bunkers and servants. This is all for control for the people and blaming the current oil woes on "terrorists", "moslem", "GREEDY moslem people" and "weather-related issues".

YOU ALONG WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WERE TRICKED BY A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY FOR THEIR LUST FOR POWER AND CONTROL OF THE MASSES FOR THE POST-PEAK WORLD.

There.

(actually, have you directly answered any of my questions?)

Mezurashi

Jun 8th, 2005, 7:32 AM

Instead of quoting and stuff I will try to summarize as best I can...

The Assumptions made regarding the Peak Oil thing are that the Findings and Timelines given have any bearing on reality at all. Who is providing this Info and What is their Agenda?

Why does it seem there is less Suspicion of the Sources of Info and those who Question the Info and its Sources (like me)?

Having NEVER stated a distinct position of Peak Oil (only that the "predictions of the past didn't occur") I have been pigeonholed into taking a stance by others - this is known as MISSING THE POINT.

Why are the Reactions against those who Question the Accuracy and Validity of the Peak Oil info more like churchies reacting against heathens in their midst?

Why is it that not sharing a viewpoint automatically means that person had the Opposite viewpoint (note: not 'different' but 'opposite')?

**I have NO CLUE as to what the world's oil reserves are doing. I AM NOT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON A PESUDO-PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF WORLD ECONOMICS and I am certainly not getting metaphysical, that's too much work.

all I offered was the Possibility of Corporate Shenanigans in this whole mess and the response was interesting ... in that it reminded me of going up against churchies in their God Debates...

Belief can take many forms - I know better than to challenge the religion of Peak Oil now and I will humble back away so you can worship in peace. Out.

lotrfan55345

Jun 8th, 2005, 3:17 PM

The Assumptions made regarding the Peak Oil thing are that the Findings and Timelines given have any bearing on reality at all. Who is providing this Info and What is their Agenda?

Assumptions? Thats like assuming that there will be food at the local supermarket. Most people would consider that a normal/fair assumption. Just like the assumption that information at the USGS is (for the most part) correct and that major universities, energy advisors to the president and oil minister of oil-producing countries is a faily accurate source of the current state of the petroleum industry.

Why does it seem there is less Suspicion of the Sources of Info and those who Question the Info and its Sources (like me)?
Lets see...
∞ reasons. It's almost like a self answering question... just think about it a bit.

Having NEVER stated a distinct position of Peak Oil
Well you seem to think that the current peak oil discussion is false, and that oil is not peaking right now.

Why are the Reactions against those who Question the Accuracy and Validity of the Peak Oil info more like churchies reacting against heathens in their midst?
Theres a difference between listing scientific sources than their bibles. I think most people have made that clear.

Why is it that not sharing a viewpoint automatically means that person had the Opposite viewpoint (note: not 'different' but 'opposite')?

because of: "now, for a bunch of people who are constantly 'questioning' media sources, many have jumped onto this latest Junk Science bandwagon..."

See when some one says "junk science", it does mean THEY think it is junk. Unless of course they are trolling.

**I have NO CLUE as to what the world's oil reserves are doing. I AM NOT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON A PESUDO-PHILOSOPHICAL VIEW OF WORLD ECONOMICS and I am certainly not getting metaphysical, that's too much work.
Science is "pesudo"-philosophical? Ok... I also won't belive people who suddenly come question major and reliable sources with abolutely no sources to back them up. Just a statement with "I wonder who is giving them their checks" So that AUTOMATICALLY means there HAS to be a conspiracy.

I offered was the Possibility of Corporate Shenanigans in this whole mess and the response was interesting

Possibility? You were outright preaching it.

... in that it reminded me of going up against churchies in their God Debates...
You must've not been in many of them...

Because I don't know what "religion" you battled against but in none of my "god debates" none of them have offered me any credible/scientific sources to put up their beliefs. (Kind of like you!)

Belief can take many forms - I know better than to challenge the religion of Peak Oil now and I will humble back away so you can worship in peace. Out.

Most people don't even belive in peak oil, and question it. You make it seem like it is an overwhelming conspiracy and that just everyone has to be "saved" from it.

And you do that last part. You are really shaking my beliefs about my quasi-religion.

Mezurashi

Jun 8th, 2005, 5:36 PM

You are really shaking my beliefs about my quasi-religion.

Yes sir, right away sir, no questions sir, have a nice day, sir.

(p.s. Tolkien Stole everything from the Norse Edda's :Blbl: )
hee hee

lotrfan55345

Jun 9th, 2005, 2:27 PM

An recent webcam interview w/ Iran's oil minister.
http://www.reporterassociati.org/

Barbara:
- Mr. Bakhtiari, what's happening to oil?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
Many, many things at the same time, most of all influenced by the imminence of 'peak oil' which my WOCAP model predicts for 2006-2007 (bear in mind 2006 is only 15 months away). Oil price is climbing regularly, as is crude oil's place on the global agenda. Come 'peak oil', the price will be much higher (people remembering the "good old days" at $50 when it was still very cheap) and oil will be at the top of the agenda and remain there for quite some time.

Barbara:
- You're a senior chemical engineer in the oil field. Nobody better than you can tell the last word about those new "huge fields" they keep on talking about. Are those "huge fields" in Canada, in Mexico, in the ocean deep, going to save us from the consequences of peak Oil?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
There are no more 'huge oil fields' (which I call 'supergiants'). The last two have been discovered in 1999 (the Azadegan field in south Iran) and in 2000 (the Kashagan field in offshore Kazakhstan). Both are not faring well at all. Azadegan is in contract to Japanese 'INPEX' and seems to be standing still. As for Kashagan (operator Italy's ENI) it should begin producing in 2008 (if everything goes right). Real problem is that existing 'supergiants' (some 40 in the whole world, producung around one third of total oil output) are getting old, some have more than 50 years of service --- like the largest of all: Saudi Arabia's GHAWAR (still producing some 4 million b/d). Experts believe that the chances of finding another 'huge oil field' are almost nil.

Barbara:
- You say "oil will be at the top of agenda". It seems already is! Don't you think, from what you see, that international leaders are aware (and influenced) of peak oil coming? Do you think they have an hidden agenda about it?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
Oil is certainly not "top of the agenda" when it will be the media will be obliged to turn to it, maybe three-digit prices could achieve that. Not many people are aware of 'peak oil', some politicians know but don't want to talk about it (all negative). I don't think there is secret agenda: what could it be ? There is no plan B. When 'peak oil' eventually arrives it will create enormous problems, especially for those totally unprepared. One of the only country that is doing something now is Australia: they are really thinking and switching investments and getting ready.

Barbara:
- Recent news report that international banks, like Morgan Stanley, are buying oil supplies directly and stocking them. Is this a sign of Peak Oil coming, are they expecting prices to grow forever?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
I hadn't heard about 'reserves-building' by Morgan Stanley and others. Very wise investment indeed, as the price can only go up, with some volatility along the way (of course).

Barbara:
- OPEC conventions are no more top news. It looks like OPEC is going to lose its power. They are no more able to decide oil price, leaving the price flowing with the market for the first time in history. What's the future of OPEC with Peak Oil coming? Will they simply dissolve as a cartel or they'll try to make a stronger agreement in order to keep oil production in their hands?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
OPEC has lost both its raison d'etre and its power. It could try to change its spots, but that requires vision, imagination and lateral thinking --- which I can see within the present OPEC Secretariat. So that I am not optimistic about the Organization's future, especially that it is now almost useless to the international oil industry. OPEC needs a miracle to survive 'peak oil'.

Barbara:
- Franco Bernabe, former executive director of ENI (and now director of PetroChina), in 1998 said peak oil was expected in the very first years of new millennium. But most of your colleagues in the oil field never mention Peak Oil, and act like we're soaking in it. Can you guess why?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
Mr. Bernabe was right in 1998, but in general the int'l oil industry doesn't want to hear about 'peak oil'. None of the big oil companies are ready to acknowledge it, although they must all know that it is bound to come sooner or later. But until they can get away with remaining silent, they will carry on. For the time, they are far too busy counting their mirobolant profits (which are breaking all world and national records in 2004).

Barbara:
-Let's speak a bit more about Italy. Maybe you know Enrico Mattei and his "unrespectful attitude" to the western companies he called "the seven sisters". He was the first to make an agreement to buy Iranian oil. In the path of his tradition, ENI today is working at Darquain field without worries about the embargo. How are the relations between Italy and Iran regarding oil?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
About ENI's Iranian ventures, I think there is an abyss between what the great visionary Dr. Mattei achieved and today's projects. Enrico Mattei was an extraordinary individual who single-handedly create ENI (the largest Italian company in 2003: 42th worldwide with a market value of $ 77bn; Italy's no.2 comes way below ranked 91st :'Telecom Italia') and imbued ENI with "a sense of mission". He brought to Iran in 1957 the most revolutionary type of contract (the "75-25") that became the industry's new norm (and maybe cost him his life). Today in Iran, ENI has come with the worst possible type of contract --- the so-called 'buy-back' or 'revised buy-back' (even worse, if that is possible) --- in its two projects of 'South Pars Phases 4 + 5' and 'Darquoin'. I rest absolutely certain that the late Dr. Mattei would NEVER have signed a 'buy-back'.

Barbara:
- "No nation that sits on so much oil and gas has a legitimate, peaceful need to generate nuclear electricity." This is what Ari Fleischer, one of the hawks of USA administration, had to say about the Iranian nuclear program. Some say that the nuclear electricity program is a "defensive screen" to discourage future invasions. Since you need a lot of oil at a cheap price to build nuclear plants, is it possible Iran is preparing for Peak Oil?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
I really doubt that people are preparing for 'peak oil' by going to renewable energies. They don't know anything about 'crude oil', how could they know about 'peak oil' ?

Barbara:
- A last word about your people. Iranians are a strong and unite people, they're well educated and love their ancient country. What do you expect for your future?

Dr. Bakhtiari:
I seriously hope that the great Iranian people will be better off tomorrow than they are today: they really deserve much, much better...