Approaching the end of days [Archive]

uruk

11th February 2004, 06:34 PM

Where are all the OIL reserves in the world, what type of oil do they have, and what are their expected cost-effective production lifespans?

Alaska, Texas, Russia, China, Mexico, the Middle East, various locations out in the ocean, on the face of the kid who cooks the burritos at Taco Bell.

Good ol' crude and natural gas.

however big the deposit is that the well is tapped into. say 10-30 years average.

The fact is There is ALOT of oil out there. But it's not limitless. I had a disscusion with a friend about why we continue to buy all of our oil from the middle east and russia when we have plenty of oil here. Living in Texas I can tell you that there is oil and natural gas riggs going up all over the place here. They drill and cap. U.S. oil companies have wells all over Mexico, and offshore in the ocean. Where is all that oil? My friend actually said that the oil here is "bad". That it doesn't distill as good as arab oil. HA!
Actually it is the "National Reserve". All the oil here is being saved for when the rest of the world runs out or when OPEC tries to squeeze our n*ts again like they did in the 70's.

Although I do belive we will run out of oil, we have alot of time to develop alternatives. Alternatives will become viable when the price of oil gets too high.
Then again it just might be a plot by the oil companies to justify raise oil cost. I mean, look at the diamond industry.

As a matter of fact, I wish it would happen now. I'm tired of hocking a body part whenever I have to fill up my tank.

uruk

11th February 2004, 06:43 PM

But now they are not, and I'm pretty sure that Russia would be very happy to accept petro-dollars as much as any other money, not to mention the prospect of world-class oil extraction technology from the USA, if possible

The U.S. has been buying Russian oil since the Soviet Union collapsed. Though we are "officialy" limiting the amount we buy for political reasons. We want the Arabs as allies in the Middle East.

I agree with you oil and politics are intimately intertwined. You might even say U.S. foriegn policy is largely oil. I'm sure there is a lot going on that is not public knowledge. The Oil must flow.

Demigorgon

11th February 2004, 06:47 PM

Pah-lease! When I was a kid they were saying we'd be outa oil by the year 2000.

We wont run out of oil for a LONG time. And we can replace it with alternatives within 5 years. Tops.

OMG TEH OIL WTF W1LL WE DO!!!11!!ONE

Tricky

11th February 2004, 07:01 PM

If anyone wants a slightly (though not greatly) less hysterical take on this, try the science forums (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870311571#post1870311571).

Zep

11th February 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by uruk

The U.S. has been buying Russian oil since the Soviet Union collapsed. Though we are "officialy" limiting the amount we buy for political reasons. We want the Arabs as allies in the Middle East.

I agree with you oil and politics are intimately intertwined. You might even say U.S. foriegn policy is largely oil. I'm sure there is a lot going on that is not public knowledge. The Oil must flow. Exactly my point. And it would follow as a political decision at some time that the Arabs could be squeezed by showing preference to this and other alternate oil sources. Playing one source off against the other.

Btw, the USA is not the only consumer of oil-based products, nor the only "owner" of same.

Another: The Germans in WW2 were not industrial chemical slouches, and developed mechanisms to produce a fair amount of high-grade fuels and lubricants from low-grade sources such as various types of plants and trees. They had to - their usual sources of in-ground oil were denied to them by force of war. This sounds trivial now, but a major use for oil is fuel in combustion engines, usually for transportation of some sort (cars, trucks, diesel motors, etc). So if an alternative source for this use alone was developed cost-effectively then the existing in-ground reserves could be dedicated to non-fuel purposes and so be consumed over a lot longer period of time. Can that be done? Let's see...

While agreeing that deforestation such as is happening in the Amazon basin today is deplorable, there are still vast forests of vegetation suitable for "fuel production" in many places in the world. So much so that it has been posited that their regrowth rate would always exceed the viable usage rate, i.e. the ultimate renewable resource. (I'm not sure this would be entirely true, myself - modern man tends to use way more than he needs.) It has even been posited that just consuming the "noxious weed" plants for this purpose alone would be sufficient, AND it would do double duty - improve agricultures, as well as create cost-effective fuels.

Pie-in-the-sky? Well, maybe. But it is certainly viable using current, freely available, cost-effective technology. But I'll bet it isn't on Bush's agenda anywhere.

Again, this is still just trying to stretch out the existing mode of industrialisation based on internal combustion engines using today's technology. The changes that might occur over the next few years might make a significant difference.

Zep

11th February 2004, 07:38 PM

Just out of interest, here's some information on BIOFUELS (http://www.australianbiofuelsassociation.org.au/Biofuels/BenefitsAustralia.htm).

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 04:01 AM

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=peak+oil&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Sorry to lift your rugs, but this aint going to go away. Peak oil is not some crackpot theory. It's a fact. And it's on our doorstep.

Do we just want to stick our heads in the sand and allow the predicted outcome? That's the impression I'm getting here.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 04:04 AM

http://www.peakoil.org/

I particularly liked this page, especially Huxley's quote:

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

Marquis de Carabas

12th February 2004, 05:16 AM

LG,

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Peak Oil is coming. The crackpot part isn't that it's a fact, it's that this will lead inexorably to the downfall of civilization. I'll read your new links sometime later today when I get the chance, but the first page was a fine example of the great art of over-reaction.

Gregor

12th February 2004, 05:31 AM

Hey, great web-site on Peak Oil. It's the 1972 oil doomsayers meeting the out-of-work Y2K theory.

Finally, a use for all my unmilled flour and my bomb shelter.

LG - if you had been alive (or conscious) in the 1970s, you'd have a better perspective on this thing.

Everyone sing with me

"It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
. . . and I feel fine."

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Peak Oil is coming. The crackpot part isn't that it's a fact, it's that this will lead inexorably to the downfall of civilization.
Then perhaps you can explain to this forum how 7 billion people (projected population forecast when it happens) and all their industries, homes, and vehicles (transport) - not forgetting medicines, hospitals, fertilisers - will continue to be heated/run or manufactured as the oil begins to run out and becomes increasingly more expensive, sending the market into a mass depression, creating starvation and disease and mass panic, etc. etc..

Seriously, some of us need our minds putting at ease. Some of us are not happy to leave our heads stuck in the sand whilst everyone continues to blow the whole friggin show. So, please put our minds at ease.

Upchurch

12th February 2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You stupid fools. How much oil (and other resources) do you think the earth contains?Accourding to your philosophy, there is as much resources as we (i.e. God) chooses there to be. Why are you worried about this at all? Is this a matter best left to us "materialists"?

:rub:

Dancing David

12th February 2004, 08:01 AM

The issue as I see it Lifegazer is not that there is a limited supply of oil, IE a fossil feul. It is that we are using fossil feauls, which is marginaly okay at the current rates of use, but as you point out if all he people in the world were to consume resources at the rate of the USA then the world would very about twenty times more polluted.

The issue is fossil feul, there is still a HUGE amount of oil in the ground and they will find more every day, did you know that twenty percent of the oil stays in the ground? So where ever there is a tapped out oil well, they could theoreticaly extract another bunch of oil from it. When it becomes cost effective.

Then there is this HUGE reserve of fossil feul in the bottom layers of the ocean where there is enough methane trapped for us to continue to burn fossil feuls for freaking millenia.

The issue is that we are using a fuel source which is non-renewable and a very high cost to the enviroment. There are the cool developing feul cell technologies and other things like fusion and deep ocean thermocouples, but the real problem for our planet is not that we are going to run out of oil, but that

We are using fossil feuls in the first place!

Thanks

Marquis de Carabas

12th February 2004, 08:10 AM

LG,

Look, as God, my plan is ineffable, so don't go trying to eff it up, dig?

Not even all of your Doomsday prophets are freaked out about this...

71 Conclusions
· Peak oil is a turning point for Mankind
· 100 years of easy growth ends
· Population peaks too for not unrelated reasons
· The transition to decline is a period of great tension
· Priorities shift to self-sufficiency and sustainability
· It may end up a better world

That was from here (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/de/lecture.html), the very first link off one of the pages you provided (http://www.peakoil.org/).

Simply put, there's a lot of data to digest, and interpretations of that data that say "the world is doomed" are dubious, at best. We've heard those interpretations before.

Nyarlathotep

12th February 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Pah-lease! When I was a kid they were saying we'd be outa oil by the year 2000.

We wont run out of oil for a LONG time. And we can replace it with alternatives within 5 years. Tops.

OMG TEH OIL WTF W1LL WE DO!!!11!!ONE

I remember that too. Not that we shouldn't look for alternatives to oil, because ther IS a finite supply. But getting alarmist and panicky helps nothing.

lifegazer

12th February 2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Accourding to your philosophy, there is as much resources as we (i.e. God) chooses there to be. Why are you worried about this at all? Is this a matter best left to us "materialists"?

:rub:
If you read the link, you'll see that "peak oil" could possibly be the reason for armageddon.

I've said before that God will not do anything for man that man will not do for itself. If man allows this to happen and does nothing to prepare for it, then man will suffer. Greatly.

Iacchus

12th February 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The alarm bell is already ringing. Do you care or not? Do you want to change things or not?
The 21st century is when we grow up or die. Your choice. You are mankind. Isn't it amazing how much junk we have that we don't need? I bet if we could reduce our need for luxury items by two-thirds, in conjunction with intensive recycling, that it wouldn't affect our comfort level a whole lot. Do you? And how big of a dent do you think that would make towards a solution? Heck I could probably get rid of at least that much right now and I wouldn't miss it much. I know one thing, I'm not taking it with me when I die.

Tricky

12th February 2004, 10:07 AM

Do you know what one of the biggest power hogs is? It is your computer. You may say, "my computer doesn't use nearly as much energy as my heating", and you would be right. But hidden from you is the enormous amount of energy required to run those powerful servers that store and route internet data and websites. They are one of the big reasons for the California energy crisis a few years ago.

uruk

12th February 2004, 11:29 AM

I've said before that God will not do anything for man that man will not do for itself. If man allows this to happen and does nothing to prepare for it, then man will suffer. Greatly.

Don't you mean god will not do anything for himself if god allows this to happen and god will suffer? we are god right?

Besides what the heck does god need with oil? It's not real, it's just happening in his mind.

I remember one of these evangelists ( the one that has the old lady with the Tammy Faye Baker makeup and hair the size of a Volkswagon) dancing up and down after the 911 attack saying that Armaggedon was coming. We had a big battle in the right spot. But no second coming.

Like I said, the end of the world can't come soon enough for me.

Funkenstien

12th February 2004, 11:41 AM

http://www.newenergy.org./
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/

Ya. this whole Oil Peak thing is gonna take us by surprise. Noone is going to see it coming. we are all doomed.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/
http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/RenewableResources/
http://www.nei.org/

Please. someone make the government aware of it. And what about business?

http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_414.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,57578,00.html
http://www.ecoworld.org/Articles/Hydrogen_fuel_cars_EW.htm

:yawn:

Silicon

12th February 2004, 04:42 PM

I heard a professor talking about Peak Oil on the radio. Not this wack-job with his crazy tesla site. The author of Out of Gas.

For an intellectual, he was really sounding like an alarmist.

My main problem with it, and his attitude was this:

He posits a problem that's so scary that the end of our civilization is inevitable, or at least very very possible.

But he FAILS to account for the collective brain-power of the entire planet.

What HUBRIS that he thinks he can come up with a problem that ALL the scientists, all the energy companies, all the industries in the world working on all the facets of this problem cannot solve.

One man is not that smart. And every possible "solution" he cavalierly dismissed in this show, as if he had deep knowlege of all the possibilities of all the disiplines in science.

His conclusions are convienient, to say the least. He chooses to conclude that post-peak oil prices will cause the downfall of man.

Yawn...

Tell me when it's safe to take off my acorn-resistant-helmet.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Zep
The person who created this website is a very young and very naive law clerk, and seems to have very little experience in the field on which he writes.

You think so, do you?

I think you are wrong. I think you should back up your words.

The content is completely and hysterically alarmist while almost totally vacant and inept in basic research of facts.

Oh really?

WHICH FACTS ARE WRONG?

To such an extent that if I looked at the site with a really jaundiced eye I would suspect it of being an April Fool's joke, or a scam of some sort. Chicken Little stuff at best.

So far you have responded with a bunch of insults and ad hominems. Do you have anything actually resembling an argument?

Gee, Lifegazer, some of you Americans will believe ANYTHING unquestioningly, won't you! :) In which case, I've got a lovely big bridge you may be interested in buying cheap...

Your post was contentless and worthless. You have not read the article, you have not thought about its content and you have not provided any argument to back up your pronouncements on its validity. TRY AGAIN.

Going to dismiss this site too?

Going to actually bother thinking about it this time before more crap spews from your keyboard?

http://www.dieoff.org/

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
LG,

With all the time you spend concocting your own crackpot theories, where do you find time to read other people's? :D

edited to add the goodwill smiley

NO CONTENT in this response either.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Just answer the question, please. I was honestly intrigued.

How about YOU actually deal with the content of what lifegazer posted?

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Zep
OK, serious question for you in response to the silly website.

Where are all the OIL reserves in the world, what type of oil do they have, and what are their expected cost-effective production lifespans?

Off you go - do some research for a change. Come back when you have a half decent answer.

The main remaining reserves are in Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait in the middle east, and in Russia.

The middle east fields will peak in the next 10 years. Russia will peak slightly later. PEAK OIL will occur withing 10 years. After that, everything goes tits up.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by uruk
interesting. He did forget about geothermal, orbiting solar, ionosphere, and synthetics. And that development of fusion reactors is progressing, though slowly.

If you think these things are going to replace fossil fuels and the dependence of modern manufacturing, farming, drugs and everything else we use oil as a raw material for then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

No way Jose.

I think he is also underestimating the power of the marketplace.

To do what, exactly?

I am sorry, my friend, but before oil-based agriculture and medicine the carrying capacity of this planet was less than 1 billion people. Therefore, after oil-based agriculture and medicine the carrying capacity of this planet will once again be less than 1 billion people.

The free market will not enable you to solve this problem. You cannot eat money.

I do think a crash is inevitable. but history shows that it is usually not as bad as doomsayers claim it to be. Sometimes it's worse.

I think the article is SPOT ON. Do a google for "after the oil crash" and you will discover that many other people think so too.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Zep
[B]While I am an avid supporter of alternate energy sources myself, what LG has missed is that the dummy who wrote the website has not the faintest idea about what the REAL situation is re the world's oil supplies.

I am rapidly concluding that you are a complete fool. DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE? eh? :rolleyes:

For example, there are vast, cheap oil fields in Siberia that the Russians have yet to properly exploit.

Ha! Oh yes, the russians played their cards right. They knew this was coming and saved their oil. But it won't save YOUR bacon. You think the ruskies are gonna bail out the US? Think again, dipstick!

But now they are not, and I'm pretty sure that Russia would be very happy to accept petro-dollars as much as any other money, not to mention the prospect of world-class oil extraction technology from the USA, if possible. If they did, the Saudis would have a competition on their hands, and so might just decide to lower prices accordingly.

You are talking out of your arse. The russian and middle east oil reserves are all taken into account. GO AND DO SOME RESEARCH.

Really, the picture is WAY more complicated than the website makes out. Hence my Chicken Little comment.

Either you have not read it or you did not understand what you read.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:05 AM

Everyone sing with me

"It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
. . . and I feel fine." [/B]

Finally, a sensible reply. :)

"It's time I spent some time alone......"

Marquis de Carabas

13th February 2004, 06:07 AM

JG,

Please accept my sincerest apologies. It seems I had momentarily forgotten the JREF Forums rule outlawing all frivolity. I most humbly beg your forgiveness.

LG has presented us with a few websites that reek of hysterical ramblings. If he desires to put forth, on this forum, the extraordinary claim that Peak Oil will cause the end of civilization, it is up to him to proivde the extraordinary evidence to back it up.

No-one here has denied that Peak Oil is real. LG has not demonstrated (to my satisfaction, nor apparently to several others') that the threat is as dire and unmanageable as these pages suggest.

Besides, get it through your head, Geoff. I'm freaking God, man. Timeless, omnipotent. I don't worry 'bout nothin'. Oops, that looks frivolous. My apologies again.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
LG,

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that Peak Oil is coming. The crackpot part isn't that it's a fact, it's that this will lead inexorably to the downfall of civilization. I'll read your new links sometime later today when I get the chance, but the first page was a fine example of the great art of over-reaction.

And your replies are classic examples of a person faced with an unpleasant truth who COMPLETELY FAILS TO ACCEPT IT.

This time you are wrong. Lifegazer is correct. You are way off the mark.

All I have seen from you is poorly-thought-out bullsh*t. Gimme some FACTS.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:10 AM

Simply put, there's a lot of data to digest, and interpretations of that data that say "the world is doomed" are dubious, at best. We've heard those interpretations before. [/B]

Yep, this is your flawed reasoning. We have heard previous predictions that the world as we know it is ending and they were wrong, therefore it is safe to ignore this one.

YOU ARE A FOOL!

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Funkenstien

Ya. this whole Oil Peak thing is gonna take us by surprise. Noone is going to see it coming. we are all doomed.
:yawn: [/B]

Of course it is not a surprise. Of course they know it is coming. Why the hell else do you think they invaded Iraq!!?

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Silicon
I heard a professor talking about Peak Oil on the radio. Not this wack-job with his crazy tesla site. The author of Out of Gas.

For an intellectual, he was really sounding like an alarmist.

My main problem with it, and his attitude was this:

He posits a problem that's so scary that the end of our civilization is inevitable, or at least very very possible.

But he FAILS to account for the collective brain-power of the entire planet.

Well, congrats on actually realising there is a question to be answered unlike this whole tribe of MORONS who just rejected it without thinking.

However, brain power ain't going to save us.

What HUBRIS that he thinks he can come up with a problem that ALL the scientists, all the energy companies, all the industries in the world working on all the facets of this problem cannot solve.

One man is not that smart. And every possible "solution" he cavalierly dismissed in this show, as if he had deep knowlege of all the possibilities of all the disiplines in science.

His conclusions are convienient, to say the least. He chooses to conclude that post-peak oil prices will cause the downfall of man.

Yawn...

Tell me when it's safe to take off my acorn-resistant-helmet. [/B]

You think that technology will save us. The economists think that the free market will save us. The Christians think God will save us.

You are all mad. Nobody is going to save us. The world as we know it really is screwed. When are you twits going to realise this?

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
[JG,

Please accept my sincerest apologies. It seems I had momentarily forgotten the JREF Forums rule outlawing all frivolity. I most humbly beg your forgiveness.

LG has presented us with a few websites that reek of hysterical ramblings.

LG has a record of hysterical rambling. This time he is correct.

It is fairly grim. This does not automatically mean it is wrong.

If he desires to put forth, on this forum, the extraordinary claim that Peak Oil will cause the end of civilization, it is up to him to proivde the extraordinary evidence to back it up.

The website contain EXTENSIVE evidence. It agrees with recent data in both New Scientist and Scientific American. It agrees with statements made by both the oil industry and the Bush admiistration. THIS TIME IT IS REAL.

Marquis de Carabas

13th February 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
You think that technology will save us. The economists think that the free market will save us. The Christians think God will save us.

And what do you think will save us? Apparently spouting ad hominem attacks all morning down at the JREF?

You are all mad. Nobody is going to save us. The world as we know it really is screwed. When are you twits going to realise this?
Fine, Geoffy, the world's screwed. Pass me my fiddle.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

And what do you think will save us? Apparently spouting ad hominem attacks all morning down at the JREF?

Of course not. What I saw in this thread was that Lifegazer linked to a very accurate, very well-written and very serious article about a very serious subject.

The response was you and several other people trashing the article and trashing lifegazer without reading it and without thinking about it. I reacted to this by jumping on you and jumping on the other people who put their typing fingers into action before they bothered to find out what they were talking about.

Had you actually read the article before dismissing it I would not have attacked you.

Fine, Geoffy, the world's screwed. Pass me my fiddle.

Yes, my friend, the world really is screwed. I know you may find this hard to believe and hard to accept but that does not make it any less true. As the article says, you can stick your head in the sand if you like, but just remember that your ass remains exposed for reality to kick it.

Dancing David

13th February 2004, 06:32 AM

Just Geoof,

You are making quite the fool of yourself, have you read my post?

Are you aware of the methane layer, or do you just run around bashing people who aren't subscribing to the Church of Chicken Little as you happen to Believe in?

There is enough methane in a form that we can use as a feul source, the end of the world is not coming any time soon, there is a lot of oil left in the ground, and after that there is a huge supply of this fossil feul at the bottom of the ocean.

Chill out dude.

There is plenty of feul to continue to ruin the planet with, have no fear, our society isn't going to crash from lack of feul. It is going to crash from enviromental degredation. The enviroment will recover eventualy.

Dancing David

13th February 2004, 06:41 AM

For all those who are worried that we might be forced to develop enviromentaly friendly energy sources, and that we might have to change our energy consuming habits I have two words for you:

Methane Hydrate (http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_methane.htm)

We can certainly ruin the aerth at no cost to our current lifestyles if we wish. There is no lack of of fossil feul, there is probably lots more oil just waiting for us to find and extract it, much less getting it from things like coal and old oil fields.

Thanks for your concern for the end of using fossil feuls! You are a bunch of sillies and I mean that in the best possible way. Just like a drug addict worried that thier source will dry up, don't worry the dealer won't run out any time soon!

:):):):):)

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

You are making quite the fool of yourself, have you read my post?

Am I really? Do you think I care what you think, David? Do you think my credibility at this site rests on your opinion?

Are you aware of the methane layer, or do you just run around bashing people who aren't subscribing to the Church of Chicken Little as you happen to Believe in?

Am I aware that there are large amount of methane hydrate in various places around river deltas? As a person who has spent many years learning about global climate change I can assure you that I am very much aware of the methane hydrate situation, its danger with regard to global warming, and the inpracticability of using it as a replacement for fossil fuels.

There is enough methane in a form that we can use as a feul source, the end of the world is not coming any time soon, there is a lot of oil left in the ground, and after that there is a huge supply of this fossil feul at the bottom of the ocean.

People have been talking about the possibilities of using methane hydrates as a replacement fuel when the oil runs out for a long time. There are a number of reasons why this hasn't happened. The first is that it is very difficult to retrieve it, and difficult to store and transport it. It is extremely unstable. More importantly it is only of very limited use. In terms of burning it to produce electricity then YES, methane hydrate will eventually be seen as a better alternative to going back to burning coal. However, it does not stop the problems caused by the end of oil production. The real problem is not just the loss of energy for supplying heat and electricity. The real problem is that oil is a basic raw material used to produce all modern fertilisers, most modern drugs, all plastics and a whole host of other things that the modern world is completely dependent on. Methane is absolutely no use whatsoever for any of these uses. You cannot make pesticides and fertilisers and plastics and pharmaceuticals out of methane because all of those things are made of molecules with long chains of carbon atoms and methane contains one single carbon atom.

There is plenty of feul to continue to ruin the planet with, have no fear, our society isn't going to crash from lack of feul. It is going to crash from enviromental degredation. The enviroment will recover eventualy. [/B]

Here I am in agreement. But if you already realise that climate change is going to get us in the next 100 years, then why do you think burning methane hydrates to escape the oil crash is going to solve the problem.....it will make it worse instead! :confused:

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 06:55 AM

David,

If you want a site that brings together both the oil crash and the general environmental situation then go here :

http://www.dieoff.org/

Geoff

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 07:17 AM

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html

The uh, I think basically that now, that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand; not years away. If it turns out I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating.
But unfortunately the world has no Plan B if I'm right. The facts are too serious to ignore. Sadly the pessimist-optimist debate started too late. The Club of Rome humanists were right to raise the 'Limits to Growth' issues in the late 1960's. When they raised these issues they were actually talking about a time frame of 2050 to 2070. Then time was on the side of preparing Plan B. They like Dr. Hubbert got to be seen as Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf...

– Investment Banker Matthew Simmons
[Matthew Simmons has been a key advisor to the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations. An energy investment banker, Simmons is the CEO of Simmons and Co. International, handling an investment portfolio of approximately $56 billion. He has served previously on the faculty of Harvard Business School. Among Peak Oil researchers he is known for two seemingly contradictory things: being a staunch supporter of George W. Bush and his policies and probably the only outspoken insider to talk openly about Peak Oil.

I am afraid this is why I over-reacted to the "chicken little" taunts of the ignorant responses early in this thread. Back in 1968, when action could have been taken to avoid this, the people who raised the issue were treated with exactly the same "chicken little" taunts. Not this time. This time you have to face the truth. This time we are not talking about some vague future event. This time it is right in front of us. It turns out the people who accused the 68ers of being "chicken little" WERE WRONG. So don't even think about making that accusation now.

As for lifegazers "end of days" - well, no, this is not armageddon. Christ is not going to return to save us. It is not the end of the world. It is merely the end of the industrialised world.

Demigorgon

13th February 2004, 07:29 AM

Here's a simple question lifegazer - how did mankind ever exist in a time before we used oil?

Demi, wondering how we've made it this far.

uruk

13th February 2004, 07:32 AM

The main remaining reserves are in Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait in the middle east, and in Russia.

That's wrong. There are huge oil reserves on this side planet
in alaska, canada, mexico, south america and offshore.
There is huge amounts of oil under the sea. that are still yet to be tapped. ever heard of offshore drilling? all the oil we are tapping on this side of the glob is being held in reserve. The national oil reserve. Look it up. google-ize it.

You need to do some research yourself too there buddy. There is also alot of reasearch being done in synthetics and oil substitutes for medical, mechanical, and plastics needs. Scientists and corporations have known about the limited oil supply for years.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Demigorgon
Here's a simple question lifegazer - how did mankind ever exist in a time before we used oil?

Demi, wondering how we've made it this far.

The answer is very simple. Oil is cheap energy. Before we started using oil, there was a period where we used coal as cheap energy, but it was dirty and inefficient. But for the whole of the period of human history prior to that, which is about 200,000 years, the only source of energy was the sun. We survived on sunlight. The amount of food we could produce was dependent on the amount of fertile land and the amount of solar energy available.

When the oil runs out, that will be the situation again. However, deprived of the extra energy oil has given us the carrying capacity of this planet is approximately 500 million people.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by uruk

That's wrong. There are huge oil reserves on this side planet
in alaska, canada, mexico, south america and offshore.
There is huge amounts of oil under the sea. that are still yet to be tapped. ever heard of offshore drilling? all the oil we are tapping on this side of the glob is being held in reserve. The national oil reserve. Look it up. google-ize it.

You need to do some research yourself too there buddy.

No mate. It is you who needs to do the research. All the remaining oil in the US is heavy oil which takes almost as much energy to extract as it contains. Canadian, Mexican and Alaskan oil is peanuts compared to what remains in the middle east and Russia. It is so little that it is almost irrelevant. The US alone consumes 6,750 million barrels of oil a year. Peak Oil production in the western hemisphere occured in the 1970s. GO AND DO SOME RESEARCH. You do not know what you are talking about. You cannot bullsh*t your way out of this. Do not tell me to go and look this up on google, because I have spent the past 36 hours doing nothing else. Have you? Of course not. If you had, you would not be still be trying to bullsh*t your way out of this.

There is also alot of reasearch being done in synthetics and oil substitutes for medical, mechanical, and plastics needs. Scientists and corporations have known about the limited oil supply for years.

Yes, they have, you are right. However, producing synthetic oils require energy from fossil oils. So I am afraid this does not solve the problem.

UndercoverElephant

13th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Since this thread has got absolutely nothing at all to do with religion and philosophy, perhaps any other replies should go in the science thread.

Funkenstien

13th February 2004, 10:17 AM

I forgot this one...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/index.html

Silicon

13th February 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

You are all mad. Nobody is going to save us. The world as we know it really is screwed. When are you twits going to realise this?

AAAAHHHAHHA!!!!!!!

You're all mad, MAD I SAY!!!!! WOOOOHHOOHOHOHH!

We're all doomed DOOOOOMED!!!!!

Geoff,

What are you doing still posting here? Shouldn't you be hoarding canned goods and stockpiling ammunition right now?

(Silicon, who PROUDLY sat through the last end of the world, Y2K, with $20 in cash in his pocket, 1/4 tank of gas in his car, and 2 days of food in the house. I had a good laugh that day at the chicken littles who almost WANTED the worst so they could lord over the neighbors. Idiots. Self-absorbed me-firsters who happily imagine themselves as superior survivors merely because they have greater paranoia than most of us.)

Dancing David

13th February 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

Am I really? Do you think I care what you think, David? Do you think my credibility at this site rests on your opinion?

No, but the point remains, that there is still a huge amount of fossil feul available. The problem is using fossil feul, not that we are going to run out of fossil feul. The sooner we start acting like we actualy are going to run out of feul would be a good thing.

Am I aware that there are large amount of methane hydrate in various places around river deltas? As a person who has spent many years learning about global climate change I can assure you that I am very much aware of the methane hydrate situation, its danger with regard to global warming, and the inpracticability of using it as a replacement for fossil fuels.

There is also just alot of that methane out there at the bottom of the ocean.
I agree that it is impracticable and very dangerous. But it is a huge amount of fossil feul that we should also leave alone and not combine with oxygen in our atmoshere. We also really need to stop the use of 'oil' as a feul as soon as possible. But that it because we should stop using fossil feuls as actual feuls.
I have also heard people say that it is not that impractical compared to what we already do. It is just different, and that there is so much of it that we couldn't concievably use it up.
I have also heard very strong energy experts talk very seriously about the continuing recovery of 'oil' fossil feuls. And that it seems likely that we will kepp being able to find and extract oil for at least another hundred years.
The problem isn't that we will run out of fossil feul, it is that we are using fossil feul, there is enough that we can keep using it just like we are right now for a very long time.

People have been talking about the possibilities of using methane hydrates as a replacement fuel when the oil runs out for a long time. There are a number of reasons why this hasn't happened.

I would politely say that the reason why is that we aren't running out of oil.

The first is that it is very difficult to retrieve it, and difficult to store and transport it. It is extremely unstable.

So is oil. There is just enough oil to not make it profitable.

More importantly it is only of very limited use. In terms of burning it to produce electricity then YES, methane hydrate will eventually be seen as a better alternative to going back to burning coal. However, it does not stop the problems caused by the end of oil production.

I agree the problem is using fossil feul as feul, right?

The real problem is not just the loss of energy for supplying heat and electricity. The real problem is that oil is a basic raw material used to produce all modern fertilisers, most modern drugs, all plastics and a whole host of other things that the modern world is completely dependent on. Methane is absolutely no use whatsoever for any of these uses.
All the more reason to stop using oil as feul.

You cannot make pesticides and fertilisers and plastics and pharmaceuticals out of methane because all of those things are made of molecules with long chains of carbon atoms and methane contains one single carbon atom.

I don't know enough to say what you can make out of methane. It is a fossil feul that we can use and unfortunatley will use.

Here I am in agreement. But if you already realise that climate change is going to get us in the next 100 years, then why do you think burning methane hydrates to escape the oil crash is going to solve the problem.....it will make it worse instead! :confused:

:confused: and :(

I think that the problem is the use of of fossil feuls in the first place.
:(
And I am aware of the climate instability, if the antartic ice shelf melts or break, then all sorts of fun things happen.
If it is the CO2 and other green house gases that are raising the temperature, then we need to stop using fossil feuls,it would be a blessing if we did run out as fast as possible.

The oil crash hasn't happened yet, I would say that we have a good hundred years of oil left to ruin the atmosphere with, and by then they will be drilling deeper and deeper and getting old oil new ways, and two hundred years more of that out to wreck the ecosystem.

I thought that the original post as about the end of the world coming about by us running out of oil.

I feel that we can wreck the planet fine and never run out of oil. I live in a county that contains almost nothing but corn, soybeans, and people, and the big cars that the people drive. The eco system in my county is controlled by industrial argiculture, it is probably a vision of the future world.

All the trees are gone, no hedge rows. There are five rivers that are sort of natural, but all the creeks and most of the rivers are ditches. The rest is feilds and the occasional mega hog farm or two.

The rest is people and thier vehicles.

The oil crunch would be a good thing!

Then all my fellow americans would stop driving SUVs.

lifegazer

13th February 2004, 03:42 PM

Peak oil.
Peak name-your-resource. (Everything is limited).
Global warming.
Ever-growing population.
Ever-increasing demands.
Unending global divisions.
An unending war against terrorism. The terrorists cannot lose.
Increased ease of availability to acquire nuclear and biological
weaponry.

The world is screwed. That includes America.

Only unity can save this planet of ours. That's a fact.

Iacchus

13th February 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Peak oil.
Peak name-your-resource. (Everything is limited).
Global warming.
Ever-growing population.
Ever-increasing demands.
Unending global divisions.
An unending war against terrorism. The terrorists cannot lose.
Increased ease of availability to acquire nuclear and biological
weaponry.

The world is screwed. That includes America.

Only unity can save this planet of ours. That's a fact. How would you establish this unity? By creating a New World Order? You gotta watch out for that!

lifegazer

13th February 2004, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
How would you establish this unity? By creating a New World Order? You gotta watch out for that!
The people have to want it for themselves. The revolution for unity will be the only revolution whereby no weapons were used to attain victory.
Why would they want it? Because they would finally see that they are One.
And how can this be so? Because only one entity has existence, having countless inner-perceptions of being.

The philosophy of unity, as God, is mankind's last hope.
Seriously.
At the moment though, armageddon would look like a good bet.

The saddest thing about all of this is that mankind, as a whole, just has to say "Let's stop this crazy bullsh*t and sort this nonsense out.". But we do Jack all.

We prefer division. We prefer to honour our own flag or our own church or our own state or our own football-team. We find glory in fragmentation.
We prefer death - not only for ourselves, but for the groups or nations we fight for - which will surely die, eventually. And also for the world as a whole, which is on the verge of absolute collapse.

The pricks in this forum who smugly think that American scientists or American marines can save them from every catastrophe knocking on our door, make me want to puke.

Let mankind blame nobody but himself for his demise.

Let us lament what could have been.

evildave

13th February 2004, 04:23 PM

Dubya's daddy tried that "New World Order" thing. It sent all the jobs to Mexico.

So cry me a river about how expensive gasoline is. When it gets expensive enough, the "alternative" fuels become dominant.

We're actually moving towards "alternative" fuel vehicles, including electric ones.

It's not like one morning you will wake up and all the petroleum reserves will be *gone*.

Simple economy: As petroleum becomes more difficult to extract, it will become more expensive to buy. The cost of using petroleum byproducts as a fuel will eventually be more expensive than vehicles fuelled by hydrogen, powered by electricity, "bio-fuel", or whatever emerges as most popular. More people will begin to drive these cars, the gas stations that don't start providing hydrogen or "quick charge" services will be hard put to compete, or go under.

Eventually, the economy is on the other fuel.

Yeah, so something's gonna "give" some day. Be it a nasty little plague or three, or a war, or whatever. We'll get plenty of warning as the plague, famine, war and other junk happens in the third-world countries... oh, never mind. That's already happening.

Of course it's this sort of crap (http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1641514&nav=EyAzKm0Z) that will get the U.S. to build a fortified border with Mexico and let them over-populate themselves to death instead of dumping all of their "excess" across the border. Makes you wonder when the next big upheaval and mass-"Nationalization" of factories we built there will occur. After all, it already happened once.

Good thing Dubya went on the record as pro-immigration. Nothing we need more than a bunch of Usama-loving, America-hating people crossing our border to be "second class" residents.

Just as long as they're "Good Christians" and not "Islamic", I'm sure that's fine.

Iacchus

13th February 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The people have to want it for themselves. The revolution for unity will be the only revolution whereby no weapons were used to attain victory.
Why would they want it? Because they would finally see that they are One.
And how can this be so? Because only one entity has existence, having countless inner-perceptions of being.

The philosophy of unity, as God, is mankind's last hope.
Seriously.
At the moment though, armageddon would look like a good bet.

The saddest thing about all of this is that mankind, as a whole, just has to say "Let's stop this crazy bullsh*t and sort this nonsense out.". But we do Jack all.

We prefer division. We prefer to honour our own flag or our own church or our own state or our own football-team. We find glory in fragmentation.
We prefer death - not only for ourselves, but for the groups or nations we fight for - which will surely die, eventually. And also for the world as a whole, which is on the verge of absolute collapse.

The pricks in this forum who smugly think that American scientists or American marines can save them from every catastrophe knocking on our door, make me want to puke.

Let mankind blame nobody but himself for his demise.

Let us lament what could have been. I would suggest somebody should take the lead though, and my best bet would be the United States. And here maybe science, with all its know-how, could help provide the answers; and religion, with its ability to influence the masses, could provide the resources, the people. That is if science and religion were willing to get together on this. ;)

Hmm ... post number 1479. :)

Zep

13th February 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

You think so, do you?

I think you are wrong. I think you should back up your words.

Oh really?

WHICH FACTS ARE WRONG?

So far you have responded with a bunch of insults and ad hominems. Do you have anything actually resembling an argument?

Your post was contentless and worthless. You have not read the article, you have not thought about its content and you have not provided any argument to back up your pronouncements on its validity. TRY AGAIN.

Going to dismiss this site too?

Going to actually bother thinking about it this time before more crap spews from your keyboard?

http://www.dieoff.org/ Yes, Geoff, I read the article. Yes, Geoff, I read the website - all of it. Perhaps you didn't, so go look again. They "webmaster" is currently a law clerk, has been for some months now, and previously he was a message-boy for a law firm or something (won't trouble myself to read it again - your turn). Says so himself. So oh yeah, he's credible. :)

Thanks for the helpful discussion, Geoff. You know nothing about me or my qualifications or experience, yet you happily blast away with your own ad homs. Tit for tat, huh? I stick my tongue out back at you! :)

Yes, Geoff, I have some arguments - I presented some of them after my initial post. But obviously you didn't bother to read any further down for stuff, but RACED to hit the Reply button and flame me as fast as your little digit could go. Didn't you. :)

Yes, Geoff, I've had a look at the website you referenced. Alarmist in the extreme, lots of references and numbers and graphs and predictions but no reasoning. Worse still, no ideas and certainly no solutions (which strongly suggests no grasp of the problem in the first place...). So I'm hardly likely to be able to respond to EVERY point on that site as there are literally dozens of graphs and hundreds of references alone. So the above is my summary response.

Furthermore, I found few references to any oil sources outside the USA and Canada, which is a bit surprising, but less so if you suppose that the writer is slightly crazed. Anyway, that aside... Can YOU list the current global oil sources here for us? This is the same question that I asked Lifegazer to answer previously, but I have yet to see a response from him to the question. I suspect he doesn't even read them, to be frank... :)

UndercoverElephant

14th February 2004, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Funkenstien
I forgot this one...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/index.html

The raw material for this process is ethanol. Where do you think large quantities of ethanol comes from? It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is contained in a gallon of ethanol.

UndercoverElephant

14th February 2004, 03:02 AM

The criticism that the website concentrates on the problems rather than looking for solutions is fair.

There is no point in claiming this is "the end of days" and waiting for the four horsemen to turn up. This thread is about science, economics and politics, not religion. What we should be doing is thinking about how we respond to the end of cheap oil, not proclaiming that it is the end of the world.

Here is one that thinks about solutions, but it is about the UK :

http://www.after-oil.co.uk

Dancing David

14th February 2004, 06:32 AM

The wolf is always at the door and the old man is down the road, we have always lived in end times and always will.

The degredation of the enviroment is slow, and most people wont care until it is too late. But we will always live in the best of times and the worst of times. certainly we should take care of what we have...

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
There is no point in claiming this is "the end of days" and waiting for the four horsemen to turn up. This thread is about science, economics and politics, not religion.

Says who?

What we should be doing is thinking about how we respond to the end of cheap oil, not proclaiming that it is the end of the world.

You've already said, both publicly and privately, that catastrophe is inevitable. Why the change in tune?

I actually agree that catastrophe can be averted, but only - ultimately - via Unity.
Otherwise, our efforts just delay the obvious. They cannot stop it.

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David
The wolf is always at the door and the old man is down the road, we have always lived in end times and always will.

We have only had the capacity to actually destroy ourselves, completely, for less than half a century.
We're not talking about comets or dragons here. We're talking about current history and where it is leading to.

UndercoverElephant

14th February 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Says who?

You've already said, both publicly and privately, that catastrophe is inevitable. Why the change in tune?

I actually agree that catastrophe can be averted, but only - ultimately - via Unity.
Otherwise, our efforts just delay the obvious. They cannot stop it.

I see no reason why the likely approach of a post-industrial era equates to the Biblical prophecy of the end of the world. I tend to agree with David - the end of the oil era sounds like good news in the long run.

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I see no reason why the likely approach of a post-industrial era equates to the Biblical prophecy of the end of the world.

Why mention the bible?
And even if you do, why believe that revelations is to be taken literally?
Personally, I think that revelations is a mystical narrative of conscious transformation towards divine awareness.

I tend to agree with David - the end of the oil era sounds like good news in the long run.
Only if you're one of the remaining 5%.

uruk

14th February 2004, 02:22 PM

The raw material for this process is ethanol. Where do you think large quantities of ethanol comes from? It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than is contained in a gallon of ethanol.

Ethanol is made from grain. They used to harvest grain and produce ethanol many centuries before oil was used in agriculture.

I wondered whatever happened to gasahol. They experimented with it in a few palaces. doesn't take much to modifiy a gasoline engine to burn ethanol/gasoline. Matter of fact, it doesn't take much to modify an engine to burn pure ethanol.

uruk

14th February 2004, 02:49 PM

We have only had the capacity to actually destroy ourselves, completely, for less than half a century.

But we haven't done it yet, have we. still got plenty of time though

Mankind will never achieve unity. even when two people are members of the same religion they still can't agree on the same thing.
People are different; that's the facts. No religion or philosophy has ever or will ever achieve unity of thought and pourpose in people.

We are god's children, chosen people, we are all god: none of these revelation or realization have ever worked.

You are naive to think that you, in your life time, can achieve that what has never been achieved in centuries. Your message is no different than what has come before. It didn't work then it won't work now. It will never work. Unless you eliminate individuality. And there have been plenty of attempts at that. Human individualty can not be eliminated or ignored.

UndercoverElephant

14th February 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by uruk
[B]

Ethanol is made from grain.

Grain is only available in vast quantities because of oil-based agriculture. The energy has to come from somewhere. At the moment it comes from fossilised sunlight, and it goes both to power industry and to produce fertiliser. Without the oil, there is no cheap grain either.

lifegazer

14th February 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by uruk
But we haven't done it yet, have we. still got plenty of time though

We've come close a couple of times, apparently.
There was Cuba in 62/63(?), of course. Korea and Vietnam were also dangerous times... and there was the Suez crisis. Now we have the middle-east thing going on.
The point is that there appears to be no end to the danger now. Not only that: but whereas once we were worried about certain nations getting hold of nuclear/biological weapons, we are now worried about any lunatic-fringe (or wealthy individual) getting hold of those same things.

Snipers with a grudge? - Bad enough. Soon enough though, lunatics will have accessibility to the weapons once reserved for the elite nations. Then, we are in the mire. How do you think the West will react to cities attacked by nuclear/biological weapons?
Say goodbye to the East. At least, try. Because you cannot destroy anti-West terrorism without destroying the west too. Fact.

Mankind will never achieve unity.

That's a contemporary view. There were once times when people said that mankind will never abolish slavery or give women the vote.
You have to reach beyond your time to see the whole of time.

even when two people are members of the same religion they still can't agree on the same thing.

I'm anti-religion also, believe it or not. I cannot abide a religion which separates man from man or man from God. And all seem to do just that. But my philosophy states that only God exists... and that 'we' are God's perceptions of being.
Consequently, we are One.

People are different; that's the facts.

True, perceptually. God's potential is infinitely diverse. The thing is though, that most "people" are interacting with their world in ignorance of their true identity - as God itself.

No religion or philosophy has ever or will ever achieve unity of thought and pourpose in people.

My philosophy already does, since my philosophy states that only God exists. Everything else and everybody else, is just a perception that God is having. But essentially, since God is existence itself, everything is actually unified in God. The ignorance has to be defeated first, though.

We are god's children, chosen people, we are all god: none of these revelation or realization have ever worked.

Why not? Because the Jew thought himself more special than anyone else - likewise the Christian - likewise the Arab - likewise the Nazi - likewise the... etc. etc.
What is the solution to this silly state of affairs? - Simply, to tell God that he/she is not a Jew or a Christian or an Arab or a Nazi, or whatever. But to tell God (each human) that he/she is an expression of God - the only life in existence.

You are naive to think that you, in your life time, can achieve that what has never been achieved in centuries.

It doesn't matter whether I achieve it in my lifetime. I'm just planting seeds.

Your message is no different than what has come before.

Really? How many philosophies do you know that absolve Hitler of all blame?

It didn't work then it won't work now. It will never work. Unless you eliminate individuality.

'Hitler' was a product. All earthly entities are products (of God).
Individuality is an illusion.

And there have been plenty of attempts at that.

I'm aware of this. But I vindicate my philosophy in the knowledge that it is for humanity as a whole, for free = it's for God.

Human individualty can not be eliminated or ignored.
That's not true. Selfishness & selflessness is a scale that can be tipped either way.
Evolution/time shall see her glory.

uruk

15th February 2004, 08:29 PM

Grain is only available in vast quantities because of oil-based agriculture.

Nobody said the change over to synthetics and biomass has to be over night. The changeover will happen gradually untill oil could be phased out.

But like I said grain can be harvested, even in vast quantities, by hand if necessary.

uruk

15th February 2004, 08:33 PM

Bad enough. Soon enough though, lunatics will have accessibility to the weapons once reserved for the elite nations. Then, we are in the mire. How do you think the West will react to cities attacked by nuclear/biological weapons?

There are quite a few nukes that are missing or unaccounted for from russian armouries. Heck, the U.S. has lost at least 8 nukes over the years. They should have shown up somewhere by now.

Zep

15th February 2004, 09:07 PM

Isn't lifegazer sounding more and more like pillory these days... And at least pillory is GOOD at writing this stuff.

uruk

15th February 2004, 09:54 PM

That's a contemporary view. There were once times when people said that mankind will never abolish slavery or give women the vote.
Have you ever heard of the "white"slave trade?
They recently broke up a ring in florida that was ran from russia.
Child prosetution in india, philipenes, vietnam, (heck, in most third world counties.)
Slavery is still alive and well today.
There are counries where men ,much less women, can't vote.
What world have you been living in?

But my philosophy states that only God exists... and that 'we' are God's perceptions of being.

Yea, but we are individual facets of god. that's the way god want's things. When you deny your individuality, you are going agaist god's will. Are you a heretic of your own religion?

True, perceptually. God's potential is infinitely diverse. The thing is though, that most "people" are interacting with their world in ignorance of their true identity - as God itself.

we percieve this existance individualy. No revelation or wishing can change that.

My philosophy already does, since my philosophy states that only God exists. Everything else and everybody else, is just a perception that God is having. But essentially, since God is existence itself, everything is actually unified in God. The ignorance has to be defeated first, though.

Yea, but they are individual perceptions. For some reason god wants it that way. Are you saying that you want to go against god's will?

Why not? Because the Jew thought himself more special than anyone else - likewise the Christian - likewise the Arab - likewise the Nazi - likewise the... etc. etc.

That was the basic message of christianity, at least in the start.
but look what happend to christianity.

It doesn't matter whether I achieve it in my lifetime. I'm just planting seeds.

Doesn't matter. you have no power or influence to what happens to your religion after your dead. It will become distorted and corrupted by human nature. It has happened in the past, it is happening now, it will continue to happen in the future. There is nothing you can do about it.

'Hitler' was a product. All earthly entities are products (of God)Individuality is an illusion.

Individuality may be an illusion, but it is an overwhelming one. Even you can not deny your own individuality. you are you and I am me. You can not be me and I can not be you. No revelation or philosophy can change that. At least not in this existance. You can not percieve any other reality. Just this one. So you have to deal with it, like it or not. That's the FACTS.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human individualty can not be eliminated or ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not true. Selfishness & selflessness is a scale that can be tipped either way.
Evolution/time shall see her glory.

Selfshness or selflessness has nothing to do with human individuality, just how you deal with others.
At the end of things we shall see. But right now, this is the way it is. You cannot deny your own perceptions of you own indiviualty.
you have to deal with them and others.

Again, we may all be god. but we still have individual perceptions, even if they are god. we can't escape them. no matter what we tell ourselves.

UndercoverElephant

16th February 2004, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by uruk

Nobody said the change over to synthetics and biomass has to be over night. The changeover will happen gradually untill oil could be phased out.

But like I said grain can be harvested, even in vast quantities, by hand if necessary.

Uruk,

Are you aware of the volume of oil pumped from the ground on a daily basis? You are talking about growing the same amount of food, PLUS enough extra grain to make the quivalent of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil every day, WITHOUT using the oil to make fertiliser to produce all the extra grain!

Geoff

UndercoverElephant

16th February 2004, 03:16 AM

http://www.after-oil.co.uk
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://www.oilcrash.com
http://www.dieoff.org/
http://greatchange.org/
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.planetforlife.com/
http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/energy.htm
http://www.oildepletion.org/
http://tvset.org/peakoil.html

All of these websites are making the same scientific, economic and political argument that there is a problem, that it caught us while we were not looking, and that it is here and now. Where are the pages providing the scientific, economic and political arguments that it is not a problem? Please find me some.

uruk

16th February 2004, 04:45 PM

Are you aware of the volume of oil pumped from the ground on a daily basis? You are talking about growing the same amount of food, PLUS enough extra grain to make the quivalent of hundreds of millions of barrels of oil every day, WITHOUT using the oil to make fertiliser to produce all the extra grain!

What, you think there is only one farmer on the whole planet?

Get enough people together, you can build pyramids. Tending large fields by hand would be a b*tch but feasable. I used to work the fields in my youth.

Oil is not the sole source of fertilizer. There is a huge source of fertilizer wasting away in boxes in our cemetaries.

Like I said, oil companies of all people know about the inevitable exhaustion of oil. The change over will not be over night, but oil won't run out over nite either.

RussDill

16th February 2004, 05:17 PM

chicken little today, eh? Humans (and more so life on this planet) have been through a lot worse. Course, since lifegazer has never studied, he wouldn't have a clue about any of these things. Everything he has mentioned only effects the comfort and average lifespan of humans, not some apocalypse. Really, if "God" were to choose death due to some decline of civilazation, he would have already chosen during the dark ages. Or if he would have chosen to massive weather changes that wiped out most of the humans on the planet, he would have chosen an ice age. Get a grip.

Ratman_tf

17th February 2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by uruk
My friend actually said that the oil here is "bad". That it doesn't distill as good as arab oil. HA!

Actually, as I understand it, oil from the middle east has much less sulfur in it, thus it's purer and easier to refine.

UndercoverElephant

17th February 2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by uruk

What, you think there is only one farmer on the whole planet?

Get enough people together, you can build pyramids. Tending large fields by hand would be a b*tch but feasable. I used to work the fields in my youth.

Oil is not the sole source of fertilizer. There is a huge source of fertilizer wasting away in boxes in our cemetaries.

Like I said, oil companies of all people know about the inevitable exhaustion of oil. The change over will not be over night, but oil won't run out over nite either.

Using sunlight as our main source of power, either by growing food or by growing fuel crops is what humanity did for the whole of history before the oil age. There is only so much sunlight and only so much fertile land. We currently supplement that solar energy with oil, both directly by power machinery and indirectly by producing oil-based fertiliser. If you remove the oil from the equation then you REMOVE IT. You keep making suggestions that just shuffle one use of solar energy around to another, apparently not realising that the energy has to come from somewhere.

But some of what you say is true. Much of what goes into landfills can be used either as compost for improving soil or as raw material in thermo-depolymerisation for the production of oil. If we are going to survive then both of these sources of energy will have to be fully utilised - no more landfills. But even if this was done, and even if the old landfills are mined for plastics - it still comes nowhere near replacing the amount of energy we get from oil. To survive this we need to both take advantage of these things we currently waste AND drastically reduce the amount of evergy we waste by having private cars and going on holiday on the other side of the world.

And Uruk....the problem is not that the oil is about to run out. The problem is that demand is just about to exceed supply for the first time, at which point an entirely different set of economic rules start to apply. Eventually (10 - 15 years from now) it will leave OPEC in absolute control of oil prices and effectively they will have the United States in a stranglehold, bleeding them for every penny they can get because OPEC itself knows that once the oil has gone so has their golden goose.

UndercoverElephant

17th February 2004, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
chicken little today, eh? Humans (and more so life on this planet) have been through a lot worse. Course, since lifegazer has never studied, he wouldn't have a clue about any of these things. Everything he has mentioned only effects the comfort and average lifespan of humans, not some apocalypse. Really, if "God" were to choose death due to some decline of civilazation, he would have already chosen during the dark ages. Or if he would have chosen to massive weather changes that wiped out most of the humans on the planet, he would have chosen an ice age. Get a grip.

I have tried explaining this to him. Claiming it is the end of the world is not any more useful a reaction than outright denial is. In both cases no useful action is taken.

The thread had already been started in the science forum, and could legitimately be classed as politics, but it has nothing to do with the end of the world.

lifegazer

17th February 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff

I have tried explaining this to him. Claiming it is the end of the world is not any more useful a reaction than outright denial is. In both cases no useful action is taken.

The thread had already been started in the science forum, and could legitimately be classed as politics, but it has nothing to do with the end of the world.
Geoff; we're talking about the collapse of civilisation here. The author of the piece estimates that about 5.5 billion lives will be lost. (That's more than 90% of the population).

The scary thing about his estimate, is that there is no mention of a nuclear war. Now, do you seriously believe that there will be no war as the world collapses and everyone tries to grasp the remaining resources?!

Use your head Geoff. If you accept "peak oil" as presented, then you are facing armageddon.

uruk

17th February 2004, 04:17 PM

I noticed the web site did not mention this:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geoelectprod.html

As far as electricity production goes, this more than makes up for it.

Eventually (10 - 15 years from now) it will leave OPEC in absolute control of oil prices and effectively they will have the United States in a stranglehold, bleeding them for every penny they can get because OPEC itself knows that once the oil has gone so has their golden goose.

I still say that estimate is alarmist to say the least. (even experts will admit to some inacuracy in thier calculations. at least good experts) And again, as OPEC oil prices goes up. other replacements for oil will become viable enough untill oil is completely replaced.

But like the saying goes. we'll see in 10 to 15 years. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. it's coming no matter what we do.

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Geoff; we're talking about the collapse of civilisation here. The author of the piece estimates that about 5.5 billion lives will be lost. (That's more than 90% of the population).

It does not have to be the collapse of civilisation. It is a serious situation which requires action to be taken that should have been taken ten years ago, and it will hurt, but it does not have to be the end of the world. Only the end of the oil-based western world. I suspect that the population will eventually start falling, but it does not have to be as bad as all that. It depends on how people react. You are lucky to live in the part of the world which is most likely to be able to change direction.

The scary thing about his estimate, is that there is no mention of a nuclear war. Now, do you seriously believe that there will be no war as the world collapses and everyone tries to grasp the remaining resources?!

Use your head Geoff. If you accept "peak oil" as presented, then you are facing armageddon.

Well I did not present the "peak oil and the end of our world" document. I presented this instead : www.after-oil.co.uk

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by uruk
I noticed the web site did not mention this:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geoelectprod.html

As far as electricity production goes, this more than makes up for it.

I still say that estimate is alarmist to say the least. (even experts will admit to some inacuracy in thier calculations. at least good experts) And again, as OPEC oil prices goes up. other replacements for oil will become viable enough untill oil is completely replaced.

But like the saying goes. we'll see in 10 to 15 years. There's nothing we can do about it anyway. it's coming no matter what we do.

OPEC will not really raise their prices until the rest of the oil market has started to tail off, in maybe ten years. And I am not sure there is 'nothing we can do about it'. It is like what happens when your car starts making a funny noise. You can either take the hit of losing your car for a few days and paying to get the funny noise fixed, or you can leave it and leave it and leave it until it finally breaks down just when you really didn't want it to, and then you have to pay much more than you would have had to before to get the problem fixed, because the now cam belt has broken and the engine is screwed. This situation is the same. If the west responds by downsizing its energy consumption and investing heavily in alternatives to oil then in ten years time when the crisis starts to bite we will have already started to find the solution. I suspect what will happen instead is that the US will deny there is a problem, start more wars to get control of the remaining oil and descend into chaos when it finally realises this strategy was not the wise one.

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 01:53 AM

There is an important difference already between Europe and the US. The Europeans already signed up to Kyoto and are acting on it, even though the US failed to take any responsibility for their own emissions. As a result, the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in the world and we are currently building wind generators all over the place. Our economy is already been prepared for the shock, because we chose to take seriously the consequences of our pollution. In America all I see is a belief in cheap fuel as a birthright, a belief that everyone should have a car, a belief that cheap internal flights are part of what it means to be American. I also see massive resistance if anybody suggests raising the price of fuel, denial of hard science in order to continue doing nothing, and now a denial that oil is going to run out. In recent months this has descended into starting pre-emptive wars about oil on totally false charges, without UN approval and apparently without any real grasp of the political and economic consequences of their own foolish actions. In other words, The United States has already lost the plot, and doesn't look like it is going to get it back again in the near future.

Zep

18th February 2004, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
There is an important difference already between Europe and the US. The Europeans already signed up to Kyoto and are acting on it, even though the US failed to take any responsibility for their own emissions. As a result, the UK already has some of the highest fuel prices in the world and we are currently building wind generators all over the place. Our economy is already been prepared for the shock, because we chose to take seriously the consequences of our pollution. In America all I see is a belief in cheap fuel as a birthright, a belief that everyone should have a car, a belief that cheap internal flights are part of what it means to be American. I also see massive resistance if anybody suggests raising the price of fuel, denial of hard science in order to continue doing nothing, and now a denial that oil is going to run out. In recent months this has descended into starting pre-emptive wars about oil on totally false charges, without UN approval and apparently without any real grasp of the political and economic consequences of their own foolish actions. In other words, The United States has already lost the plot, and doesn't look like it is going to get it back again in the near future. I agree with the sentiment, but I would also point out that it is a highly vocal minority of Americans who hold this viewpoint...and the reins of power at this point in time. Elsewhere in America there is the sentiment and the technology and the expertise and the wherewithal to address such major world issues. Would that the good guys become more prominent REAL soon.

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 02:28 AM

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the powers that be are going to put the welfare of the world and future generations before the thickness of their own wallets.

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 03:09 AM

oops..

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the powers that be are going to put the welfare of the world and future generations before the thickness of their own wallets.

The day will come when they realise that the thickness of their own wallets in the not-so-distant-future actually also depends on them changing their habits. Only then will they change their behaviour. If they had started making changes ten years ago then it would seem less earth-shattering now. If they live in denial for a further ten years then they will eventually pay an even higher price. It costs money to reconfigure your economy, and it takes time. The later they leave it before taking action, the more expensive and difficult will the transition be when it is finally forced upon them. If massive infrastructure changes are needed to cope with what is to come, then doesn't it make sense to do it before oil prices go through the roof? That is why I keep posting this link : www.after-oil.co.uk . It is saying "If we do it sooner, then we will be prepared when the crisis comes. If we do not then we (the UK) are as stuffed as the rest of them are."

lifegazer

18th February 2004, 04:46 AM

Guess what Geoff - I agree with you. Somebody should take a picture or something.
I think that bringing this into public awareness is the first step to change. I hope that the word spreads and that the fat cats start to listen. There's not much else that anybody can do.

chapka

18th February 2004, 10:07 AM

This whole "peak oil" problem seems to be an oversimplification of the economics of oil production.

As far as I can tell, the "peak" they're talking about is in a graph of global oil production, based on current fossil fuel extraction methods, over time. Assuming arguendo that the current supply is going to fall, what does that mean? It means that fossil fuel prices will rise to reflect scarcity.

If this were a simple economic model, with a declining supply and an increasing demand, then, yes, prices would rise dramatically.

However, there are alternative sources of oil, such as extraction from shale, extraction from less pure crude, etc. Right now there is no demand for these alternative sources, not because their energy cost to produce is higher than their potential as fuel (as some people have suggested), but because their economic cost to produce is higher than the market price of other oil (except where it's artificially inflated by government subsidies or similar efforts).

However, the change in the supply curve of conventional oil extraction will change the demand curve for other forms of oil extraction. Meaning, if it costs $100 a barrel to produce oil from "bad" oil fields, when the supply of conventional oil hits $100 a barrel, these fields will be economical to exploit, and prices won't fall any farther. Similar cross-effects will come into play with respect to other fossil fuels and of alternative energy sources, already discussed on this board. Right now, solar cells on your roof might seem like a bad investment. If electricity cost 10 times as much, they might not.

Yes, in the long term fossil fuels represent an ecological catastrophe, and we should be trying to wean ourselves off of them. But in the short term, an economic catastrophe is unlikely.

UndercoverElephant

18th February 2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by chapka
[B]This whole "peak oil" problem seems to be an oversimplification of the economics of oil production.

As far as I can tell, the "peak" they're talking about is in a graph of global oil production, based on current fossil fuel extraction methods, over time. Assuming arguendo that the current supply is going to fall, what does that mean? It means that fossil fuel prices will rise to reflect scarcity.

If this were a simple economic model, with a declining supply and an increasing demand, then, yes, prices would rise dramatically.

It isn't quite that simple, no. For a start, "current fossil fuel extraction methods" sets up the environment for a future claim that improved extraction methods in the future will recover significant amounts of new oil. This is not true. Billions have already been ploughed into improving drilling and detection technology and these things are not going to signifivantly improve - it is like Moores Law in computer miniturisation - eventually you reach a point of either diminishing returns or a simple fundamental block to further progress. Improved technology is not going to fix the problem because the oil industry has already exhausted this path. The crisis is happening now because people in the oil industry do not believe that further improvements in oil extraction technology are going to make much difference.

Also, the key point is that there is a critical change at the peak - suddenly we go from a buyers market to a sellers market, and the commodity in question is unique in two respects. Firstly, it is the raw material that the whole of the modern world is founded upon and secondly there is a finite amount of the stuff left in the world. No previous situation provides an example from economics to which we can compare this one. This situation has never happened before.

However, there are alternative sources of oil, such as extraction from shale, extraction from less pure crude, etc. Right now there is no demand for these alternative sources, not because their energy cost to produce is higher than their potential as fuel (as some people have suggested), but because their economic cost to produce is higher than the market price of other oil (except where it's artificially inflated by government subsidies or similar efforts).

Shale oil and tar sands may one day be economical sources of oil, but only when the price of oil is so high that nobody in their right mind would burn it. In other words, you are correct to say that as oil becomes ever more scarce people will find it economical to recover it from these sources, but the price will be so high that it will still not be able to sustain the sort of lifestyle currently supported by oil at $15 a barrel.

However, the change in the supply curve of conventional oil extraction will change the demand curve for other forms of oil extraction. Meaning, if it costs $100 a barrel to produce oil from "bad" oil fields, when the supply of conventional oil hits $100 a barrel, these fields will be economical to exploit, and prices won't fall any farther.

Why should prices ever fall again? By that time, the oil price will only ever go up.

Similar cross-effects will come into play with respect to other fossil fuels and of alternative energy sources, already discussed on this board. Right now, solar cells on your roof might seem like a bad investment. If electricity cost 10 times as much, they might not.

The problem with solar panels is that they cost almost as much energy to produce as they generate during their lives. Yes, solar panels will be much more attractive but they won't solve this problem.

Yes, in the long term fossil fuels represent an ecological catastrophe, and we should be trying to wean ourselves off of them. But in the short term, an economic catastrophe is unlikely.

Depends what you mean by "short term". The next 50 years is the time span we are talking about. Probably no major problem for 5 or 10 years, but after that it depends on how much action has been taken between now and then. What worries me is the fact that far too many people are not willing to admit there is a problem. They are all convinced that the answer will appear from somewhere - the economists claim the free market will force us to change as the oil price slowly drifts up, not seeing the potential for an overnight catastrophe (like a stock market crash), the believers-in-technology think that science and technology will find another answer (even though we have been seeking that answer for several decades already). I think we have to wait and see, but in the intervening time some nations will continue to invest in alternatives (because they have signed up to Kyoto) ans some other nations won't, because their population is addicted to cheap fuel.

chapka

18th February 2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
It isn't quite that simple, no. For a start, "current fossil fuel extraction methods" sets up the environment for a future claim that improved extraction methods in the future will recover significant amounts of new oil. This is not true.

This was not my argument. We know that there is a great deal of oil that it is not economically feasible to extract because oil is currently cheap. We don't need to discover any more oil; we just have to want the oil that's out there more.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Also, the key point is that there is a critical change at the peak - suddenly we go from a buyers market to a sellers market, and the commodity in question is unique in two respects. Firstly, it is the raw material that the whole of the modern world is founded upon and secondly there is a finite amount of the stuff left in the world. No previous situation provides an example from economics to which we can compare this one. This situation has never happened before.

None of this makes it any different from any other substance whose supply and demand curves change over time. The key point is that a change in one commodity's supply and demand curves affects potential substitute commodities' supply and demand curves. The curve that people are projecting now is dishonest because it doesn't include other sources of oil as substitutes for the oil we're extracting now.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Shale oil and tar sands may one day be economical sources of oil, but only when the price of oil is so high that nobody in their right mind would burn it. In other words, you are correct to say that as oil becomes ever more scarce people will find it economical to recover it from these sources, but the price will be so high that it will still not be able to sustain the sort of lifestyle currently supported by oil at $15 a barrel.

Do you have any hard data on how much it will cost to extract oil from alternative sources? There's a big difference between saying "we'll run out of oil and civilization will collapse" and "oil will go up $20 a barrel and civilization will collapse".

Remember, just because we're not exploiting it now doesn't mean it's impractical; it just means it's not currently profitable. And as Dickens could tell you, a few shillings a barrel can be the difference.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Why should prices ever fall again? By that time, the oil price will only ever go up.

My error; I meant to say that the prices would stop rising when they reach the point where alternative forms of extraction become economical.

At that point, oil prices will stabilize (since nobody doubts the massive supply of oil in shale and tar), albeit at a higher rate than today. They will then fall as increased technology and lowered demand (conservation, alternative energy) dictate.

UndercoverElephant

19th February 2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by chapka

The key point is that a change in one commodity's supply and demand curves affects potential substitute commodities' supply and demand curves.

The key point is that there aren't any potential substitute commodities. There are 6 billion people on this planet. 1 billion already do not have enough to eat and 4.5 billion of the rest of us are completely dependent on cheap-oil-based fertiliser, cheap agricultural diesel fuel. There simply aren't any substitutes which come anywhere near being able to replace oil for these purposes. Sure, you can turn organic stuff currently being land-filled into fertiliser (or oil via TDP) but the quantity recovered is nothing like enough to replace the oil. Having blind faith in the free-market and human ingenuity will not keep 6 billion people alive when the oil runs out.

The curve that people are projecting now is dishonest because it doesn't include other sources of oil as substitutes for the oil we're extracting now.

We have been through this many times already in this thread.

Do you have any hard data on how much it will cost to extract oil from alternative sources?

The problem is not the cost. The problem is that it takes almost as much energy to get the oil out as the energy you get out. For example, to recover oil from sand you have to steam it out, but the amount of energy required to create the steam is almost as much as the energy contained in the oil, so you end up creating twice as much CO2 and quadrupling the price of the oil. Not much of a solution. Problems like this apply to all the alternative sources of oil. There is plenty of recoverable coal and methane, but you cannot make cheap oil, cheap aviation fuel and cheap gasoline from coal or methane.

chapka

19th February 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
We have been through this many times already in this thread.

You've admitted in a previous post that if conventional oil runs out, alternative oil sources will stabilize the price, but at a higher level than today. I'm just trying to point out the implications of this statement. If we've been through it so often, why do you say that "there aren't any potential substitute commodities"? The alternative sources of oil are the substitute commodities which are not accounted for in the original production/time curve.

What you haven't provided is actual data on how much the alternative extraction schemes will cost. You talk about "quadrupling" the price of oil if we're forced to extract from sand. Do you have figures to back this up?

Again, the "curve" used in the original post is dishonest. The only thing it shows is production of conventional oil dropping. It says nothing on its own about price (as would a real supply curve). The article in the OP claims that this means oil is "running out." What it really means is that oil will get more expensive. Whether that's a big deal depends on how much more expensive it will get.

As for fungibility of fossil fuels...no, you can't run a jet on coal. But you can generate electricity from coal in a way that's as clean as oil; it's just more expensive. As soon as oil gets more expensive than burning coal cleanly, those oil users who can will start to switch to coal or coal-generated electricity. This is yet another reason oil prices are unlikely to spiral out of control.

I don't have "blind faith in the free market" as you accuse me of having. I have a basic understanding of economics and enough sense not to stockpile canned goods if the people arguing that the sky is falling can't come up with any hard numbers to back it up. Shale oil extraction, for example, happens now all over the world on a small scale, although it's not economically feasible for export. Any dramatic change in the price of oil would likely change this.

uruk

19th February 2004, 11:04 AM

1 billion already do not have enough to eat and

Most of those people are starving because their governments or belief system alows them to starve. money is usualy not the issue.

there was a show on the discovery channel last night about car.
The last segment was about cars running on alternative feuls. there were cars runing on everything from soy and cooking oil to hydrogen and methane. also some neat stuff about hybrid and fuel cell cars.

UndercoverElephant

19th February 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by chapka

You've admitted in a previous post that if conventional oil runs out, alternative oil sources will stabilize the price, but at a higher level than today.

A much higher level - a level which makes oil a very valuable raw material for manufacturing certain high-value products. A level which would make burning it for fuel something that an ordinary person cannot afford. It will be a different sort of commodity altogether - it will no longer be the foundation of the global economy.

What you haven't provided is actual data on how much the alternative extraction schemes will cost. You talk about "quadrupling" the price of oil if we're forced to extract from sand. Do you have figures to back this up?

Well this might give some idea :

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0301/msg00432.html

Alberta mulls nuclear plants to power oil sands extraction

By PATRICK BRETHOUR

Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - Print Edition, Page B1
CALGARY -- Alberta is contemplating the use of nuclear reactors to feed its power-hungry oil sands megaprojects. The province's Energy Ministry and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the federal Crown corporation that sells reactors, have already had preliminary discussions about how nuclear power might be used in the oil patch. And AECL has commissioned a study from the Canadian Energy Research Institute on how the costs of nuclear power compare with the natural gas-fired plants currently used to generate the steam and electricity needed to extract gooey bitumen from the oil sands and process it into usable crude oil. The study, nearly complete, will show that nuclear power is a viable option for the oil sands, at least on a strict cost basis, said Bob Dunbar, CERI's senior director of research. "It does look like it's going to be competitive," said Mr. Dunbar, head of the study. He said that evaluation does not include the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol, which would add to the expense of using natural gas for power generation and strengthen the case for nuclear energy. Right now, the Alberta government is willing to hear the case for nuclear power, said one senior official in the Energy Ministry.

"We're open, but intrigued would be an overstatement," said Bob Taylor, assistant deputy minister for oil development. He said AECL, looking for new markets, approached the province about two months ago to kick off discussions. Earlier, in formal remarks to a CERI conference in Calgary, Mr. Taylor said the growth in Alberta's oil sands operations by 2045, to perhaps four million barrels a day from about one million barrels now, could boost energy requirements so high that "every molecule of gas" produced in the province would be consumed. He said that such growth, while not guaranteed, demonstrates that oil sands operators need to rethink their "addiction" to natural gas. "What we're doing is not sustainable over time."

So Alberta is seriously thinking about extracting oil from sand, but in order to do so it needs to build a nuclear power station in order to provide enough energy!

I think that just about sums up the situation.

As for fungibility of fossil fuels...no, you can't run a jet on coal. But you can generate electricity from coal in a way that's as clean as oil; it's just more expensive. As soon as oil gets more expensive than burning coal cleanly, those oil users who can will start to switch to coal or coal-generated electricity. This is yet another reason oil prices are unlikely to spiral out of control.

The real problem is the things for which we currently use oil which cannot be easily done with coal or gas. Heating and electricity generation can be done with gas or coal. But the only thing you can make fertiliser out of which is available in globalised industrial quantities is oil. The same goes for gasoline and aviation fuel. These are the problem areas, because no substitute is available. So what suffers is air travel and car usage in the west but more seriously agriculture all over the world. At the end of the day we can survive without cars and foreign holidays, but 6 billion people cannot be fed without cheap fertiliser and without cheap diesel for powering agricultural machinery. The real problem is feeding the 5 billion people who did not exist before the age of cheap oil, not to mention the 2 or 3 billion additional people who are likely to be born before the **** really hits the fan in 20 years time.

I don't have "blind faith in the free market" as you accuse me of having.

Sorry. My other half is just about to complete a PhD in economics and I have spent far too long talking to her about this.....

I have a basic understanding of economics and enough sense not to stockpile canned goods if the people arguing that the sky is falling can't come up with any hard numbers to back it up.

I don't think stockpiling goods is going to help much. :)

Shale oil extraction, for example, happens now all over the world on a small scale, although it's not economically feasible for export. Any dramatic change in the price of oil would likely change this.

Not if you have to build a nuclear power planet to provide the energy to extract the oil it won't.

uruk

19th February 2004, 04:02 PM

Actually, as I understand it, oil from the middle east has much less sulfur in it, thus it's purer and easier to refine.

You may have something there. I live close to the mexican american border, and as I understand it mexico uses it's own oil.
The national oil company is PEMEX. The cars burning mexican gasoline have a very distinct odor in the exhaust. Now that you mention it, it is a sulphurous odor.

Odd thing though, mexican gasoline was once cheaper than U.S. gasoline.

chapka

19th February 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by JustGeoff
The real problem is the things for which we currently use oil which cannot be easily done with coal or gas. Heating and electricity generation can be done with gas or coal. But the only thing you can make fertiliser out of which is available in globalised industrial quantities is oil. The same goes for gasoline and aviation fuel. These are the problem areas, because no substitute is available. So what suffers is air travel and car usage in the west but more seriously agriculture all over the world.

But the price of oil won't rise past the level of alternative fuels as long as OTHER uses can be diverted to those alternatives. Surface transport is what uses most fuel now. If a significant proportion of that is diverted to coal (via electric or hybrid cars), it will reduce the demand for oil and lower the price. Supply curves don't exist in isolation.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Not if you have to build a nuclear power planet to provide the energy to extract the oil it won't. [/B]

(a) I was talking about extraction from shale, not sand. AFAIK shale production is only marginally economical--not enough to be competitive, but not so ridiculous that it would cause a global catastrophe if we had to use it.

(b) The article you link to says that it's not sustainable not because of economics, but because of the scarcity of natural gas. If a nuclear plant can produce oil at only (say) twice the cost of conventional processing, then it'll make sense to build nuke plants once the price of oil doubles. And people will.