Peak Oil

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:04 pm

"just take the time I've got left, buy some gold, get a year's worth of MRE's and off to my cabin for me." That's good advice, no matter what part of the ideological spectrum you're on, in the USA. Encouraging self-reliance and self-sufficency was a good idea before the "peak oil" hypothesis loomed large on the info-horizon. But if you're below middle class- like myself- I'd suggest sticking to the nuts and bolts, like buying a few hand-pump water purifiers. Blankets, clothes, camping supplies...all can be easily found for huge bargains at the thrift outlets. This is America, where "secondhand" = often means "nearly new" or "worn once." And find a nice honest community of decent people who know and get along with each other. Whether it's a commune, an apartment building, a trailer park, a place where they have "town meetings"...whatever. And personally, I'd rather hit the road and take my chances than end up in a "refugee camp." If it comes to that. I think it's a risky empowerment strategy to put all of one's eggs in the basket of "the revolution." I certainly don't know anyone with children who does that. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 7/31/05 5:30 pm

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:22 pm

finite resources run out. CHEAP finite resources run out sooner. know where the danger to you lies. and beware anyone promoting de-population.

by **prophetlady** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:40 pm

I've been researching Peak Oil for almost two years now, and tend to lean toward the "not if but when". After taking a good look at the available subject matter, what I have come to realize is that, whether or not we are geologically actually coming to the peak now is a moot point. What IS actually occuring now is the setup. First it starts as a radical fringe theory, then it begins to trickle into the mainstream. A couple of articles in National Geographic, the NYTimes dropping little tidbits here and there, Roscoe Barlett's presentations to Congress. If you'd have Googled Peak Oil two years ago, you would have gotten some hits but Google it now and see what you get. I've come to believe that Peak Oil will be THE issue, whether it really is or not. It makes for the perfect justification for all the current and future resource wars, does it not? "We're running out of oil and the only way to preserve our way of life is to get it from our enemies" kind of justification, when push comes to shove. And "Peak Oil" also lends itself well to the population issue. It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

by **wolf pauli** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:47 pm

wolfpauli, what do you know? Are you some emminently knowledgeable petro-geologist? I made no claim to knowledge of petroleum geology. In fact, I made no claim regarding peak oil at all, except that Campbell's statement about the irrelevance of politics to settling the scientific question, and Bardi's near-tautologies about abiotic oil, are incontrovertibly true. Now, about that bear-proof suit ... Will it hold off attacks of reading incomprehension?

by **robertdreed** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:48 pm

In terms of depopulation, the leading continent is Europe, I think. In the strict sense of the word, in terms of net loss of population over a given period of time. Africa appears as if it's heading for a trend of depopulation. I think it's best kept in mind that back around 1970, the pessimists were predicting that there would be 8-10 billion people on Earth by this point in time, rather than the 6 billion that's resulted. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 7/31/05 5:48 pm

by **heath7** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:58 pm

Ahhhh... smoke and mirrors! Reading incomprehension, I think not. The tone of your post was clear, whether you said, outright, that peak oil is a fact or not. It makes good sense to point out that not all warnings prove to be false, but don't patronize those that still aren't convinced by calling us irrational, and unknowing of the difference between cole-slaw and oil shale.

by **GDN01** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:20 pm

I'm not an expert in this field but have done a fair amount of reading on this topic, and this is my opinion on the topic: AnnaLivia hit the nail on the head. My ex-husband works in the petroleum industry and is very conservative and not at all inclined to conspiracy theories or "worst-case-scenario" thinking. I asked him what he thought about all this peak oil talk. And he surprised me by saying it's going to get bad. And it's going to get bad because the fuel is getting harder to get at and costing much more per barrel to produce, and the increase of demand cannot be met. It's not just the increase in population, but the ratio of people in the current population who want fuel has multiplied. When the last boom was happening, petroleum companies, especially those in exploration, made tons of money. They are not making it now. Sure, they are making a profit, but it's still not like it was in the late 70's early 80's. Because production costs have sky-rocketed as the fuel they are trying to get to is deeper in the ground. And think about everything that is made from petroleum products - plastics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics. And transportation costs of everything - especially food and water. As the cost of fuel goes up, so does everything else. And not just a little - we're talking major increases in costs. My ex said there are no more easy to drill and pump oil fields out there. None. Even in the Gulf of Mexico - it is all much harder to get to now, than it was a decade ago. The increase we are seeing in fuel prices will continue. This could bring about economic collapse and the other worst case scenarios predicted. Populations are not prepared to start harvesting their own food and water resources are not readily available. These basic needs will become unaffordable to the average person. And while there is technology for alternative fuel sources, trying to convert all of our industries so that they can be used does not appear to be feasible - it will take more years than we have, and the very cost of doing that could make basic items such as food and shelter and pharmaceuticals completely unaffordable, too. My ex said, without blinking, this is what is driving the military activity in the Middle East. The U.S. govt. is doing everything it can to secure affordable fuel for the foreseeable future, by preparing for an eventual complete take-over of the Middle East, including Saudi. He believes the govt. is building bases and will initiate a draft to provide the necessary military power to do so. And the time frame he gave was "we need to have secured the oil fields before 2010."

by **maggrwaggr** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:55 pm

The experts DO agree that Peak Oil is a matter not of "if" but "when". Some people around here put the "expert" label on people who really don't know what they're talking about. At least regarding Peak Oil. I'm amazed at the amount of denial regarding this issue, even among those who should know better. I've known about it since 1979. And I was hardly the first.

by **wolf pauli** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:51 am

Reading incomprehension, I think not. You may be right. There are two options. The point of my post was that those who think a conclusion about a scientific matter can be reached from non-scientific considerations are behaving irrationally -- a point on which both proponents and opponents of peak oil should be able to agree. If you disagree because you misunderstood my post, you're in the incomprehension camp. If you understood my post but disagree, you're in the irrational camp. I definitely have views on peak oil. Since butting my head against either of the aforementioned walls is not my idea of fun, I'll address them to others.

by **wolf pauli** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 2:55 am

The experts DO agree that Peak Oil is a matter not of "if" but "when". Yup. There's a consensus among petroleum scientists on peak oil, just as there's a consensus among climatologists on global warming. Dreams End wrote: What I do know is that peak oil is not a unanimous verdict by the "experts." True, but consensus doesn't require unanimity. If our standard is unanimity among experts, only propositions of pure mathematics and logic can be admitted. Here's a really sterling example of the slide from consensus to unanimity from a global warming skeptic, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT: With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? quoted at: <a href="http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html">www.greeningearthsociety....a_29c.html</a> Lindzen does go on to rein in his hyperbole a bit (a sop to scientific literacy?), but what remains is just a rhetorical question, 'why do you have to bother to understand it?' -- obviously not addressed to the scientists whose business is to do just that. Well, how about non-scientists who recognize that their lives and the lives of their fellow human beings depend on where the world is heading? Seems to me they'd have a very good motive for trying to understand these matters too. It's not consensus, but scoffing, that has the thought-stopping effect.

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:15 am

"peak oil"...the rapid end of the cheapest energy with by FAR the highest energy return on energy invested... WILL make its reality known. everyone IS going to know it's real...someday all too soon. here's a good-sense video, hour and a half in length. scroll down to the seventh bullet (dot)...Richard Smalley's presentation at Columbia. you can skip the first 13 or so minutes safely, and he doesn't really get rolling until about 20 minutes in. <a href="http://smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862">smalley.rice.edu/smalley.cfm?doc_id=4862</a> btw, did anyone besides me notice that on the morning of the London bombings, Saudi Arabia had finally just announced officially that it CANNOT meet demand as of 2010??????

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 11:06 am

maggrwaggr and other said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> The experts DO agree that Peak Oil is a matter not of "if" but "when".<hr></blockquote> Well, I suppose that's true. I guess when I say "Peak Oil" I'm specifically referring to the folks who say the "when" is right around the corner....as with Ruppert's 2007 prediction. I acknowldedge that the mainstream view is that oil is a finite resource based on geological events from a long time ago and as such will (effectively) run out . Now, I am interested to learn that "peak oil" is the consensus opinion among petroleum experts. So what is their "when"? Again, the timing is important and I don't consider models that give us decades to be part of the "peak oil" thinking I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about those pushing it as just around the corner. I don't demand unanimity, Wolf, but I was under the mistaken opinion that there was no such consensus even as you define it. The primary reason is that no one seems to be doing much about it and even oil companies don't fare too well in the midst of global collapse. If the consensus is so evident that non-geologists can detect it, then why are people still wasting their time with global warming research and negotiations, for example? Obviously, if we have a dramatic reduction, albeit involuntary, of fossil fuel use, that will take care of itself, or at least as much as it can given the damage already done. In other words, if this is so well known, if there is consensus, where are the behaviors that go with it? Where are the commercials from the nuclear power companies ("Nuclear power....because it's TOO LATE for anything else.") You see what I'm asking here? If it is such a consensus, there are lots of things I'd expect to see happening that aren't. I don't mean benevolent government swooping in to save the day, but actions taken to insure enough continuity and sustainability that will allow big oil executives and their ilk to survive. To do that, they'd want some level of continuity and sustainability...or are all the rich buying their own farms? Will money even make much of a difference given such a collapse? Let me add that, I really am open to some suggestion about peak oil. My concern is that Ruppert (again, it's main proponent) FEELS familiar. I think that there are other agendas at work here. (By the way, my concerns don't necessarily imply that peak oil is false, even though I've been suggesting that, only that those pushing it are not our friends.) I'm getting the feeling that one of the most important tactics of our elite buddies is to keep us feeling scared, off balance and powerless. Whether through taking advantage of atmospheric effects (Aquino..in another thread), blowing shit up, messing with new and deadly viruses, OR tossing end of the world messages out there (remember my Rockefeller example), it is part of a global and sophisticated "strategy of tension" that makes Gladio look like a tea party. And whether peak oil is part of that effort or not, it certainly has that effect. And as has basically been acknowledged on this thread, peak oil implies we might as well give up...there's nothing we can do but head for the hills.

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:41 pm

implies we have to give up? not at all! i repeat; not at all! personally, i think there is an awful lot of whistling past the graveyard going on, and that it CAN be "doomsday".....but nothing says it HAS to be at all! we have options...we can create opportunity...we are the species that can over-ride our mechanics...and we live under a sun that would literally cook us with energy if more than a small percentage of it reached the earth's surface. and war is still an AFFRONT to human nature, so don't give me the 'we're hopeless due to "human nature" line'. i don't buy it. i also note, about population, that we don't simply gather food, we make it. every mouth born comes with two hands which are capable of producing more food than that mouth needs, and the whole world population could stand together in the state of arkansas currently. i'm not saying there is no limit, nor that we can continue to abuse the environment with our overly-large western-society footprint, but truly, the de-populationist is wrong and not your friend. mother nature's birth is uncontrollable. god didn't know we would multiply? which is it...was god shortsighted, mean, or just stupid to be stingy with us? am i a hopeless romantic to think we were given everything we would need from the git-go? this is no time to sit in the burning house, wondering what can we do. it is time to get out of the burning house! the Chinese are HARD at work on the problem; we should be, too. politicos know it yet stand in the way. after all, their money-masters are just now reaching that choke-point where they can squeeze maximum profit from shrinking supply. are they going to give up the golden goose? not while she's still laying eggs. billions and billions spent on wars and "weapons for peace"...all to enrich 500 families of rotten scoundrels. don't tell me the money doesn't exist to throw at solving our energy crisis. it's a DISTRIBUTION of funds problem, plain and simple. the wealth-powerful are never going to offer you a de-centralized energy system. it just isn't going to happen. how will they keep their profits and that millstone around the neck of all the joe lunchboxes in the world, if joe can harness energy on his rooftop for free? no, that's a threat to their cheap-labor agenda. you must never forget that cheap labor is how they get their other-earned wealth. mike ruppert is not the main proponent of peak oil in my book. i've read hundreds of hours on energy, and i'm barely acquainted with ruppert at all. and i think you're 100% correct that many agendas are being played out amidst this crisis. hell, i put nothing past the greedy elites, and i do not underestimate the human consequences of their lethal (to us) games. yes, they'll milk it for all the divide-and-conquer tension they can. they have off-grid homes and bunkers, and more money than you can shake a stick at. you have a job, if yr lucky. they know the score on "peak oil". you might end up in a "camp", working to be fed. a gallon of gas does....dang, i can't remember if it's 13 or 30...man-hours of work. how long will we continue to suck energy for our leisure pursuits at the cost of zero leisure for our unborn descendents? any idea how dead these ensless fields of corn and soybeans here in iowa are now, without petro-chemical fertilizers? everyday, run-of-the-mill business practices also explain peak oil. the finance structuring of "stated oil reserves" guaranteed false reporting, right off the bat. a lot of what is happening should come as no surprise. corporations by law are beholden to their stockholders, not to your little kids' interests. this is so much less about an actual date (a date we won't be able to determine except through the rearview mirror, btw) than about the rate and magnitude of the downside of the curve. no one has a crystal ball on this, and there are madmen at the helm. the consequence of ignoring this crisis are enormous. the when that is around the corner, is an engineered economic "collapse"...which translates to yet another massive transfer of wealth into the pockets of the richest rich. we'll still be pumping SOME oil for a long time. but that's just not the point. the rich buying farms? the rich already own most of the land in the world. gad how i hope some of the stuff i've read about zero-point energy is true! gad how i hope cold fusion really is possible! some days i can hardly believe that the truth about 9/11 combined with the truth about energy, has not already brought this administration down. the slumber of the public is deep, indeed.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:55 pm

That is all good food for thought, ALP. The "hopelessness" is really the sense I get from reading Ruppert. And Ruppert is the main purveyor of peak oil in a a political context. That is, he isn't a petrochemical expert or geologist...he is someone who is connecting the dots, so to speak, and finding pretty much all of our current political crisis track back to peak oil. He has books that sell well and cd's and speaks all over the place but his information itself probably comes from the books you are familiar with. I add that he makes some serious cash with this enterprise. Ruppert is of concern because he's made great inroads into the left and activist communities. His message that 9/11 is now a dead issue, for example, disturbs me. He's all about "the end is near" and has none of your optimism for the potential of human action in the face of this crisis. THIS is what I criticize when I talk of Peak Oil, with a capital PO.

by **hmm** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:20 pm

messenger? I'm not sure ruppert wants population reduction as such,he is just aware of the implications of peak oil and seems to have a pretty good idea regarding one of the "solutions" to peak oil. This "solution" is the one that should worry us most as its one of the only solutions that doesnt involve changing the very fabric of western society. And this should make us quite suspicious...

Peak Oil

Re: Riemann pique

conserve

To Peak or Not To Peak

Re: Riemann pique

de-population

Re: Riemann pique

Affordable Fuel

who says the experts don't agree?

Re: Riemann pique

Re: who says the experts don't agree?

it's all about affordable terra-watts

Dude, I'm peaking

what a jumble of thoughts

Food for thought

Re: Food for thought - dont shoot the population reduction

Who is online