Has Global Peak Oil been reached?

[Anders Lindman]

"LONDON—The International Energy Agency warned Wednesday that oil markets are in for a bumpy ride after global oil supply fell by 200,000 barrels a day in February, despite Saudi Arabian production hitting a 30-year high." -- Full story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304692804577280892297461530.html

[SpitfireIX]

Edited for Rule 12.

[Anders Lindman]

"Climate policy: Oil's tipping point has passed

The economic pain of a flattening supply will trump the environment as a reason to curb the use of fossil fuels, say James Murray and David King." -- Nature 481, 433–435 (26 January 2012) | http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html

"The "tipping point" for oil supply appears to have occurred around 2005, says Murray, who compared world crude oil production with world prices going back to 1998. Before 2005, supply of regular crude oil was elastic and increased in response to price increases. Since then, production appears to have hit a wall at 75 million barrels per day in spite of price increases of 15 percent each year." -- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uow-cin012612.php

[Tomtomkent]

The title bears no relation to the OP. They both discuss oil but I see no actual discussion of why Trolls might assume that any of the quoted sentences indicated peak oil was reached, and not the expected factors of variable real world production rates.

No doubt we are in for many pages of ill informed trolling where somebody who knows nothing about a subject, has not bothered to research the subject, and considers factual evidence as a bad thing for a conspiracy theory tells us what he reckons.

I cant even see what this is doing in the CT department. What conspiracy?

[Captain_Swoop]

where's the Conspiracy?

[Anders Lindman]

where's the Conspiracy?

The media silence and the coverup stories to hide the global peak oil problem.

[Anders Lindman]

"Global oil production is set to peak between now and 2030, and may already be peaking. Unless emerging technologies are developed in time, this will be likely to result in a global economic downturn. Government intervention may be needed to ensure the necessary technological progress." [emphasis added] -- http://www.sigmascan.org/Live/Issue/ViewIssue/472

[Tomtomkent]

Yay. I was right. Dont feed the troll.

[Anders Lindman]

The title bears no relation to the OP.

The article in the OP is an example of a coverup story. It talks about oil supply, not oil production. Supply can come from tapping stored reserves. So the conspiracy theory is that while the article and other mainstream articles for the public like that are probably factually correct, at the same time they cover up the real underlying problem which is that global peak oil has already been reached.

Here is another similar example:

"Exclusive: Obama, Cameron discussed tapping oil reserves

Thu Mar 15, 2012

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron discussed the possibility of releasing emergency oil reserves during a meeting on Wednesday, two sources familiar with the talks said, the first sign that Obama is starting to test global support for an effort to knock back near-record fuel prices." -- Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-obama-energy-spr-idUSBRE82E00P20120315

[Anders Lindman]

The title of the thread could perhaps have been something like "Media coverup of Global Peak Oil" but the conspiracy theory is much bigger than that! Possibly absolutely huge, with many conflicts around the world in oil-producing countries being a part of a massive conspiracy as an attempt to tackle the global peak oil problem, plus monumental manipulations of the oil price etc.

Maybe the title "The Global Peak Oil Conspiracy" would be a possible title I guess.

[Anders Lindman]

They manipulate the oil production statistics to make it look like there is a steady increase by lowering the statistics for previous years.

For example, in the latest OPEC statistics it says that the total oil production for February 2012 was 30,968 tb/d and that in 2010 the production was 29,267 tb/d: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/MOMR_March_2012.pdf

Compare with this graph which clearly shows that OPEC's oil production in 2010 was over 30,000 tb/d: http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u25930/2011/pic_article_031212_PB_zubrin1_0.jpg

From: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293144/america-s-energy-disaster-robert-zubrin?pg=1

And here is another graph that also clearly shows that OPEC's oil production in 2010 was over 30,000 tb/d: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPOP.gif

From: http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

[Anders Lindman]

Alex Jones and Jim Marrs talked today about how the ruling elite is preparing for a disaster and have underground bunkers and seed vaults etc. What if they know that the global oil plug has been pulled and that we are fast approaching a sudden total collapse of oil supply? :eek: That the peak oil problem is monstrously worse than what is generally known?

I don't believe that scenario myself, but I thought it was fun to include it as a worst case Mad Max scenario. He he.

[ComfySlippers]

Alex Jones and Jim Marrs talked today about how the ruling elite is preparing for a disaster and have underground bunkers and seed vaults etc.

That's all he has ever talked about.

Alex Jones?

Stop trolling Anders.

[Anders Lindman]

That's all he has ever talked about.

Alex Jones?

Stop trolling Anders.

Alex Jones often presents a lot of good info, except he is suspiciously quiet about peak oil. He hasn't even talked about (as far as I know) the massive increase of oil fracking in Texas. Meet The Frackers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEJaawNieoA

[Anders Lindman]

In this show Michael Ruppert says (from about 09:55) about Matt Simmons: "... his great book Twilight in the Desert came out, which absolutely proved that Saudi Arabia is lying through their teeth about their oil reserves and their abilities." -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfO_zQWR_dk

[R.A.F.]

Alex Jones and Jim Marrs talked today...

I consider the source and don't need to read further....that you would blindly accept what these 2 idiots say is very revealing about you.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are we rejecting Peak Oil Theory or Anders Lindman?

[JohnG]

Yes

[Anders Lindman]

Here is a pretty interesting graph showing oil consumption for what they call the "Old World" and the "New World": http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f1f078669beddc23e000054/chart-of-the-day-moneygame-oil-demand-old-world-vs-new-world.jpg

From: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-24/markets/30658102_1_new-world-oil-demand-crude-oil

I have two parts of a peak oil conspiracy theory related to this. The first is that the drop of oil consumption for the Old World (U.S., Western Europe and Japan) from around 2005 is because of geological reasons rather than economic reasons. The other is that the oil consumption for the New World (Total world minus U.S., Western Europe and Japan) has been exaggerated to make the total statistics for global oil consumption basically flat to hide that the peak in global oil production has already been passed.

Peak oil is about oil production, when the production has reached its historical maximum and starts a decline. Oil consumption is of course not the same as oil production but they are basically the same since emergency oil reserves and things like that are tiny in comparison to the total oil consumption (plus the emergency reserves etc may already be included in the oil consumption statistics).

Here is an example of peak oil (for the U.S. oil production): http://www.mountaininvestor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ScreenHunter_06-Jun.-21-08.46.gif

From: http://www.mountaininvestor.com/blog/?p=565

[Anders Lindman]

The oil production history charts for peak oil follow the same decline curve for different countries. And even when looking at short time spans this can be seen, such as: http://stevemaley.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/shortfall.png

And the above graph is definitely a part of an overall peak oil curve: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/23/saupload_reuters_cantarell_through_june_20093.jpg

So how can Saudi Arabia have such a flat oil production history? See for example: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=sa&product=oil&graph=production

One possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia has been conserving its oil reserves. But as Matt Simmons said - that Saudi Arabia has been lying big time about its oil production and reserves - fits better with its flat oil production history. Saudi Arabia's oil production has probably already peaked and it's only fake statistics that is keeping an illusionary facade up.

[Patrick1000]

The oil production history charts for peak oil follow the same decline curve for different countries. And even when looking at short time spans this can be seen, such as: http://stevemaley.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/shortfall.png

And the above graph is definitely a part of an overall peak oil curve: http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/23/saupload_reuters_cantarell_through_june_20093.jpg

So how can Saudi Arabia have such a flat oil production history? See for example: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=sa&product=oil&graph=production

One possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia has been conserving its oil reserves. But as Matt Simmons said - that Saudi Arabia has been lying big time about its oil production and reserves - fits better with its flat oil production history. Saudi Arabia's oil production has probably already peaked and it's only fake statistics that is keeping an illusionary facade up.

Book recommendation for you Anders.......Lots has been written on the subject Anders, and perhaps you are all the more familiar with this stuff than me with regard to what is out there literature wise, but with respect to the Saudi question specifically, if you have never looked at this book;

TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons

it really is worth a read......

Some aspects of the subject are covered in perhaps a bit more detail than most of us would care to get into, but that said, one can skip around a bit to avoid getting bored and still pick up a lot, get flat out scared a lot too.

As a bicyclist, not a car driver, peak oil has always made intuitive sense to me. Not that I do not use and waste plenty of fossil fuel myself, surfing trips to Hawaii, Bali, and so forth, but seeing the cars all lined up struggling as they do grunting down the road every day, even before I caught wind of the subject thanks to that seminal Scientific American article by Colin Campbell back in something like '96, I thought, "this can't go on, just can't, it is inevitable, the oil drying up, slowly but surely".

What is interesting for me is that many complain about gas at $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon. We probably pay twice that given the "investment" we make in the carrier groups/battle groups that maintain/protect/safeguard the shipping/oil lanes in a sense, the wars we fight for oil, at least to some degree, the wars are about oil, and so forth. But even at $20 a gallon, $100 a gallon, $200 a gallon, the stuff is a steal, literally so.

What, the stuff took how many hundreds of millions of years to make and we are gonna' burn through it in 200 years? What if there was 300 years worth of oil left, which there ain't, but say there was, even then it would be absurd burning through it like this.

My sense is the turn has been made. As they say, it is one of those things we'll only recognize in retrospect, "IN OUR REAR VIEW MIRROR". 15 years from now we may look back and say, "yeah, there, 2010-ish is when we hit the 50% mark", or perhaps 2014 will be the year, but it seems close.

Take a look at the Simmons book Anders. I think it is worth the read. Very cheap, $ 0.01 used on ADOTCOM.

[Anders Lindman]

TWILIGHT IN THE DESERT: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons


Yeah, that book was mentioned in one of my previous posts. I haven't read it, but I have listened a lot to Matt Simmons. I was very impressed by him. Unfortunately he 'happened'? to die fairly recently.

[Patrick1000]

Yeah, that book was mentioned in one of my previous posts. I haven't read it, but I have listened a lot to Matt Simmons. I was very impressed by him. Unfortunately he 'happened'? to die fairly recently.

Check the book out Anders, even the non peak oil stuff...., simply learning about the Saudi thing, fascinating.


In a way, I am reminded of the science fiction book DUNE......The most valuable "thing" in the world, buried under a desert and so mined...... It is a beautiful and amazing world this planet of ours....

[R.A.F.]

It is a beautiful and amazing world this planet of ours....

I agree...too bad there are those who make the conscious decision to crap all over that beauty.

Guess it makes them feel more "important" than they are in reality...how sad.

[SpitfireIX]

What is interesting for me is that many complain about gas at $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon. We probably pay twice that given the "investment" we make in the carrier groups/battle groups that maintain/protect/safeguard the shipping/oil lanes in a sense, the wars we fight for oil, at least to some degree, the wars are about oil, and so forth.


US oil consumption in 2010: 19.2 million bbl/day (source (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html))

Price of crude oil today: $105 per bbl (source (http://www.oil-price.net/))

Annual US spending on crude oil at today's prices: $750 billion.

This represents only about $2.50 per gallon of oil, so we can tack on at least another 50% for refining, transportation, profit, and taxes, for at least a trillion dollars a year spent on refined petroleum products in the United States.

US Department of Defense's entire budget for Fiscal Year 2011: $687 billion, including $158 billion for "overseas contingency operations" (Iraq and Afghanistan).

This represents about 4.5% of GDP. In FY 1936, during the depths of the Great Depression, US defense spending was 3.2% of GDP (source (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1936USbn_13bs1n#usgs302)), and the US Navy had six fleet aircraft carriers in commission, building, or ordered (today the Navy maintains 11). At this time the US was a net exporter of oil, and none of the later Axis powers had begun making significant international trouble.

I also dispute your insinuation that the war in Afghanistan is "about oil" to any significant degree.

In sum, your claim that "we probably pay" an additional $4-$5 per gallon of gas in defense spending is specious.

[aggle-rithm]

where's the Conspiracy?

Right behind Anders, always.

[Myriad]

I find the concept of discussing "Global Peak Oil" as a conspiracy issue to be ridiculous.

Here's why. Peak Oil scenarios entail two main claims:

1. Industrial civilization is destined to collapse (sooner or later, quickly or slowly, completely or partially depending on whose scenario you listen to).

2. There's nothing anybody can really do about it.

It's item 2 that makes conspiracies irrelevant. Because if there's nothing anybody can do about it, a conspiracy to keep it secret makes no difference. It's like concealing a weather forecast. The weather's going to happen anyhow, and it won't be secret once it starts happening. Peak Oil conspiracy theories have the strange quality of being irrelevant even if they were true.

It would be quite different if there were a solution that evil boogeymen were preventing the public from putting into effect. Like a working free energy machine. That's implausible for various reasons but at least it's not self-contradicting. But the idea of a conspiracy to conceal a solution contradicts the very foundation of Peak Oil doomerism which is that there is no solution (hence, the doom part). If free energy exists and is known, then Peak Oil is not a problem to begin with.

Non-conspiracist Peak Oil doomers, generally, see free energy beliefs as at best feckless wishful thinking, that goes exactly counter to the kind of thinking they're promoting. (They don't even like to talk about nuclear power, and that's actually real. Doomers who will gladly regale you with pages of detailed facts and figures about every other known energy source in nature, if you ask them about nuclear power, will usually answer: "Poison! Evil! Hssssssss!" while making magic evil-eye-warding hand gestures at you.)

Here's another flavor of the irrelevant even if it were true Peak Oil conspiracy theory: that global elites are manipulating things to assure that they, and they alone, will be able to maintain their privileges and luxuries following the coming collapse. Why is that irrelevant if it's true? Because the very nature of a collapse guarantees that only an elite few, at most, would be able to maintain privileges and luxuries following it. If that were not true, then it wouldn't be a collapse. So what are conspiracy theorists complaining about? Not that no more than an elite few will maintain a higher lifestyle, because that's inevitably true in a collapse, but that it's not them. If they're right, then the only reasonable responses would either be acceptance of that fact, or doing whatever you can to attempt to become one of those elite few yourself before the collapse occurs. A third option, attempting to ensure that the elites end up destitute like the rest of us instead, is mere irrelevant spite that helps no one. (Though in a real collapse, that third option would be likely to happen anyhow.)

Okay, let's shoot for the evil conspiracy moon and see if we can find a relevant conspiracy possibility there. Let's say that every expert in the world has secretly reached consensus that the world's resources cannot sustain more than 1/10 of our current population. So they've convinced every government in the world to cooperate on a plan to outright murder 90% of us.

That would be evil, sure enough. But what does it mean to the ninety percent? Either the murderers are wrong about the ability of the world's resources only being able to sustain a smaller population, or they are right. If they are wrong, then there is no threat from Peak Oil collapse. If they are right, then the murder they plan is redundant with the natural die-off that would occur anyhow once nutrition, sanitation, and health care systems break down. An equal number of people would be equally doomed either way, and we can only hope that a well-designed murder plan could produce less suffering and preserve more infrastructure and resources intact than natural epidemics and famines would.

So, the only case conspiracists should really be worried about is if there is a murder plan, but the murder plan is unnecessary because the population can carry on just fine the way it is. But if the population can carry on just fine the way it is, why promote Peak Oil, instead of "OMG they're planning to murder us all for no reason!"?

Peak Oil and conspiracy theories go together like something that doesn't mix with water very well and water.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Anders Lindman]

On the Alex Jones show today they talked about peak uranium, lol. There may be truth to that, I haven't looked at uranium, but the funny thing is that they said that peak oil isn't a problem because there is plenty of oil, they claimed.

They are probably ordered to not mention any oil problem because that could actually make people too worried collectively. At the same time they mentioned peak uranium and rare earth minerals in Africa as a disguised heads up for peak oil.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The media silence and the coverup stories to hide the global peak oil problem.

One thing you can be sure of, the Jews have already figured out a way to take advantage of it.

[Anders Lindman]

2. There's nothing anybody can really do about it.

It's item 2 that makes conspiracies irrelevant.

But they ARE doing what they can. They are desperately trying to solve the global peak oil problem without telling the public about it. That's the conspiracy. And it may actually be a valid conspiracy, because the world could have been in even more disarray today if they hadn't covered up the global peak oil problem.

[Anders Lindman]

One thing you can be sure of, the Jews have already figured out a way to take advantage of it.

Don't forget the Vatican! The secret rulers of the entire western world!!! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Don't forget the Vatican! The secret rulers of the entire western world!!! :D

Do you think the Jews and the Vatican are in cahoots? I've always wondered about that.

[Anders Lindman]

Do you think the Jews and the Vatican are in cahoots? I've always wondered about that.

Judaism is an older religion than Christianity, but I think it was the power elite in the Roman Empire that figured out that they could piggyback on Judaism and create a new religion on top of it. And via Christianity they could much more easily grab more power than was possible with the Roman Empire.

And for example Zionism may actually be a Vatican invention. But to tie it back to peak oil, not even the Vatican or the globalist bankers can do anything to create more oil.

[Anders Lindman]

The real solution to peak oil is....... free energy! :cool: Seriously! Such as overunity extraction of zero point energy. The problem is that such technology is REALLY dangerous. That's what I believe. So they can't just roll out that kind of technology from black op laboratories.

[Anders Lindman]

:eek: I came to think of a really tricky conspiracy theory. What if they are already using free energy technology for oil extraction? In secret. Then the global peak of oil production will be moved many decades into the future.

[R.A.F.]

On the Alex Jones show today they talked about peak uranium, lol. There may be truth to that, I haven't looked at uranium, but the funny thing is that they said that peak oil isn't a problem because there is plenty of oil, they claimed.

They are probably ordered to not mention any oil problem because that could actually make people too worried collectively. At the same time they mentioned peak uranium and rare earth minerals in Africa as a disguised heads up for peak oil.

If you sincerely believe this junk, and you believe it without evidence, then there is little hope for you...

[R.A.F.]

:eek: I came to think of a really tricky conspiracy theory.

There are plenty of existing ignorant "theories", so we don't need you to pull any more out of your hiney....

In other words, stop thinking...it isn't serving you well.


What if they are already using free energy technology for oil extraction? In secret. Then the global peak of oil production will be moved many decades into the future.

Delusional...

[Anders Lindman]

There are plenty of existing ignorant "theories", so we don't need you to pull any more out of your hiney....

In other words, stop thinking...it isn't serving you well.




Delusional...

It's an extremely speculative theory, but if the global oil production will continue to remain flat for say a decade into the future I will start to think there could actually be some truth to it!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

On the Alex Jones show today they talked about peak uranium, lol. There may be truth to that, I haven't looked at uranium, but the funny thing is that they said that peak oil isn't a problem because there is plenty of oil, they claimed.

They are probably ordered to not mention any oil problem because that could actually make people too worried collectively. At the same time they mentioned peak uranium and rare earth minerals in Africa as a disguised heads up for peak oil.

There's no such thing as peak Uranium. M. King Hubbert, the original developer of Peak Oil Theory, specifically stated that it doesn't apply to Uranium. The energy density of fission fuels is simply too high.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

The real solution to peak oil is....... free energy! :cool: Seriously! Such as overunity extraction of zero point energy. The problem is that such technology is REALLY dangerous. That's what I believe. So they can't just roll out that kind of technology from black op laboratories.

Would you mind explaining, in your own words, how to take advantage of Zero Point Energy?

[Anders Lindman]

Would you mind explaining, in your own words, how to take advantage of Zero Point Energy?

I don't know how to do that but as a thought experiment think of Maxwell's demon:

"In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell to "show that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only a statistical certainty". It demonstrates Maxwell's point by hypothetically describing how to violate the Second Law: a container is divided into two parts by an insulated wall, with a door that can be opened and closed by what came to be called "Maxwell's demon". The demon opens the door to allow only the "hot" molecules of gas to flow through to a favoured side of the chamber, causing that side to gradually heat up while the other side cools down, thus decreasing entropy." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Maxwell's Demon and Perpetuum Mobile of second kind in Phun: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9nOV7u8Y4A

Next consider the vacuum energy:

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

And then combine the two into a Maxwell's demon on a quantum scale.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Frankly, I don't care about what thought experiments you come up with; Theoretically, you can (maybe) travel through a black hole and emerge in another universe. The question is, do you really believe, that there is someone out there withholding this kind of technology?

[JayUtah]

In one hand I have a ball of bread dough. In the other hand I have a Swiss alarm clock. Maybe if I mash them together, they'll spontaneously transform into a cat. --physics by Anders Lindman.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

In one hand I have a ball of bread dough. In the other hand I have a Swiss alarm clock. Maybe if I mash them together, they'll spontaneously transform into a cat. --physics by Anders Lindman.

Mmmm....freshly baked breadcats that'll wake you up in the morning? I'd buy that!

[Anders Lindman]

Frankly, I don't care about what thought experiments you come up with; Theoretically, you can (maybe) travel through a black hole and emerge in another universe. The question is, do you really believe, that there is someone out there withholding this kind of technology?

Oh yes! And many researchers who find out something related to free energy seem to be killed! That's why I suspect there is something extremely dangerous about the technology. Imagine for example zero point energy bombs that would make the alleged nuclear weapons look like firecrackers in comparison. And further imagine that terrorists could easily use that technology to create their own ZPE bombs. That's knowledge that under no circumstances can be allowed in the public society today.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Oh yes! And many researchers who find out something related to free energy seem to be killed!

Name several.

[Anders Lindman]

Name several.

Eugene Mallove, Stanley Meyer and Brian O'Leary.

[SpitfireIX]

In one hand I have a ball of bread dough. In the other hand I have a Swiss alarm clock. Maybe if I mash them together, they'll spontaneously transform into a cat. --physics by Anders Lindman.


Would the cat be dead or alive?

[JohnG]

Yes

[uke2se]

Name several.

Many is more than several. I'd say, name 50. Go on, Anders.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Eugene Franklin Mallove (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004) was a scientist, science writer, editor, and publisher of Infinite Energy magazine, and founder of the non-profit organization New Energy Foundation. He was a strong proponent of cold fusion, and a supporter of its research and related exploratory alternative energy topics, some of which are, at times, disparaged as "fringe science".*

Has what to do with ZPE?

The water fuel cell is a purported free energy device invented by American Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 21, 1998). He claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline.*

Has what to do with ZPE?

Brian Todd O'Leary (January 27, 1940 – July 28, 2011) was an American scientist, author, and former NASA astronaut.*

Wat?

*Yeah, I use Wiki too.

Does it come to you as a surprise that even, GASP, scientists eventually die?

[Anders Lindman]

Eugene Franklin Mallove (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004) was a scientist, science writer, editor, and publisher of Infinite Energy magazine, and founder of the non-profit organization New Energy Foundation. He was a strong proponent of cold fusion, and a supporter of its research and related exploratory alternative energy topics, some of which are, at times, disparaged as "fringe science".*

Has what to do with ZPE?

The water fuel cell is a purported free energy device invented by American Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 21, 1998). He claimed that an automobile retrofitted with the device could use water as fuel instead of gasoline.*

Has what to do with ZPE?

Brian Todd O'Leary (January 27, 1940 – July 28, 2011) was an American scientist, author, and former NASA astronaut.*

Wat?

*Yeah, I use Wiki too.

Does it come to you as a surprise that even, GASP, scientists eventually die?

They were all involved in free energy research. And most if not all free energy technologies are based on zero point energy I think. Even so-called cold fusion is not fusion at all I suspect, but rather some zero point energy effect.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I don't care about what you think or suspect.

Eugene Franklin Mallove (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004) - age 56, murdered.

Brian Todd O'Leary (January 27, 1940 – July 28, 2011 - age 71, cancer.

Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 21, 1998) - age 57, cerebral aneurysm.

I've known at least 10 people who died before they were 30. They were good people but none were geniuses. What do you make of that?

[Anders Lindman]

I don't care about what you think or suspect.

Eugene Franklin Mallove (June 9, 1947 – May 14, 2004) - age 56, murdered.

Brian Todd O'Leary (January 27, 1940 – July 28, 2011 - age 71, cancer.

Stanley Allen Meyer (August 24, 1940 – March 21, 1998) - age 57, cerebral aneurysm.

I've known at least 10 people who died before they were 30. They were good people but none were geniuses. What do you make of that?

Frankly I don't want to research that topic too much. It's too dangerous.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

But there already ARE alternatives to oil. Why do you think there's so much research in battery technology, solar power, wind mills etc.? None of the people working in these fields seem to killed by "them".

[Anders Lindman]

But there already ARE alternatives to oil. Why do you think there's so much research in battery technology, solar power, wind mills etc.? None of the people working in these fields seem to killed by "them".

Because those technologies are harmless. A terrorist can't use solar panels to create a weapon of mass destruction, lol.

[Patrick1000]

There's no such thing as peak Uranium. M. King Hubbert, the original developer of Peak Oil Theory, specifically stated that it doesn't apply to Uranium. The energy density of fission fuels is simply too high.

Sure It applies to Uranium..,....The modeling of peak uranium, though not identical, would be similar. There would/will be a time when we have used up half of all the world's originally available uranium. As the 2nd half of the uranium reserve will be harder to get at, mine and collect, the uranium energy economy would/will slow at the halfway point.

[Anders Lindman]

Sure It applies to Uranium..,....The modeling of peak uranium, though not identical, would be similar. There would/will be a time when we have used up half of all the world's originally available uranium. As the 2nd half of the uranium reserve will be harder to get at, mine and collect, the uranium energy economy would/will slow at the halfway point.

The peak is for the production, not for the amount of resources left in the ground, but yeah I guess even uranium will be harder and harder to extract so that a historical production peak is reached. But that would not necessarily be so if uranium ore has about the same percentage of uranium in it for the majority of the resources (or if the mining technology improves a lot).

With oil, the easy to get high quality light sweet crude oil is extracted first, and after that only oil of lesser quality - more sour and heavy oil - can be extracted and with more difficulty, meaning more expensive, demanding more energy per barrel of extraction. After that, when the oil field is starting to become depleted they need to use steam and C02 injection and techniques like that to get the oil out of the ground. After that, they start to extract oil from the really heavy stuff such as oil/tar sands. And after that they have now started to use something called fracking (for oil shales?).

[Patrick1000]

The peak is for the production, not for the amount of resources left in the ground, but yeah I guess even uranium will be harder and harder to extract so that a historical production peak is reached. But that would not necessarily be so if uranium ore has about the same percentage of uranium in it for the majority of the resources (or if the mining technology improves a lot).

With oil, the easy to get high quality light sweet crude oil is extracted first, and after that only oil of lesser quality - more sour and heavy oil - can be extracted and with more difficulty, meaning more expensive, demanding more energy per barrel of extraction. After that, when the oil field is starting to become depleted they need to use steam and C02 injection and techniques like that to get the oil out of the ground. After that, they start to extract oil from the really heavy stuff such as oil/tar sands. And after that they have now started to use something called fracking (for oil shales?).

Peak production per Hubbert comes at 50% extraction....The 2 coincide Anders....

[psionl0]

Things are obviously done different here in the CT forum.

If I wanted to know whether oil had peaked, I would examine all of the oil production figures and see what trends were indicated.

[Anders Lindman]

Peak production per Hubbert comes at 50% extraction....The 2 coincide Anders....

Ok, but can the same be said for uranium?

ETA: Plus massive improvements in technology for oil production must surely have shifted that relationship since the time Hubbert came up with the peak oil theory.

[Anders Lindman]

Things are obviously done different here in the CT forum.

If I wanted to know whether oil had peaked, I would examine all of the oil production figures and see what trends were indicated.

There idea is that there is a huge conspiracy going on having to do with manipulation of oil statistics, prices, politics and media coverup etc.

[psionl0]

There idea is that there is a huge conspiracy going on having to do with manipulation of oil statistics, prices, politics and media coverup etc.Idea??

By the same logic, you could say there is a huge conspiracy going on to prevent the public from knowing what the moon is made of (there's a huge profit to be made if you know the correct answer).

[Anders Lindman]

Idea??

By the same logic, you could say there is a huge conspiracy going on to prevent the public from knowing what the moon is made of (there's a huge profit to be made if you know the correct answer).

But take a look at the graphs I posted earlier about fraudulent oil statistics.

[Anders Lindman]

One thing that seems to be true is that THE EMPLOYMENT OF MODERN LOCATING/DRILLING/EXTRACTING/RECOVERING TECHNIQUES HAS LITTLE OR NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THE OIL PRODUCTION/RESERVE RELATIONSHIP.


Yes, they said in a video I watched recently (I don't remember which) that even with very advanced technology today it's extremely difficult to extract the oil, so Hubbert's theory may still be valid. On the other hand the global oil production has remained remarkably flat since around 2005! In an earlier post I speculated about how that plateau of global oil production may be a result of faked statistics since the oil consumption for what they called the New World (U.S., Europe and Japan) has dropped significantly in recent years and that I suspect is because of geological rather than economic reasons.

[Patrick1000]

Yes, they said in a video I watched recently (I don't remember which) that even with very advanced technology today it's extremely difficult to extract the oil, so Hubbert's theory may still be valid. On the other hand the global oil production has remained remarkably flat since around 2005! In an earlier post I speculated about how that plateau of global oil production may be a result of faked statistics since the oil consumption for what they called the New World (U.S., Europe and Japan) has dropped significantly in recent years and that I suspect is because of geological rather than economic reasons.

One thing about Hubbert's ideas Anders is they are more than theory....at least to some degree. As time goes on, Hubbert's ideas/"theories" can be empirically validated within reason, or falsified as the case may be.

For example, in the microcosm that is US oil production, Hubbert's theory based predictions proved to be the case. The reality played itself out as Hubbert's model predicted and so the model was validated by that reality.

[Krikkiter]

One thing about Hubbert's ideas Anders is they are more than theory....at least to some degree. As time goes on, Hubbert's ideas/"theories" can be empirically validated within reason, or falsified as the case may be.

For example, in the microcosm that is US oil production, Hubbert's theory based predictions proved to be the case. The reality played itself out as Hubbert's model predicted and so the model was validated by that reality.

Might be a good idea for you to clarify what you mean by "... more than theory."

[Patrick1000]

Might be a good idea for you to clarify what you mean by "... more than theory."

Hubbert's claims with regard to "American/Domestic Peak Oil" as presented in his now legendary 1956 San Antonio talk before members of the American Petroleum Institute were indeed validated. Hubbert's Peak Oil Model, his theory, was VALIDATED by events.

US OIL PRODUCTION PROVED TO INDEED BE A BELL SHAPED FUNCTION OF US/DOMESTIC PETROLEUM RESERVE IN JUST THE WAY HUBBERT PREDICTED, AMAZING!!!!!!

[Krikkiter]

Hubbert's claims with regard to "American/Domestic Peak Oil" as presented in his now legendary 1956 San Antonio talk before members of the American Petroleum Institute were indeed validated. Hubbert's Peak Oil Model, his theory, was VALIDATED by events.

US OIL PRODUCTION PROVED TO INDEED BE A BELL SHAPED FUNCTION OF US/DOMESTIC PETROLEUM RESERVE IN JUST THE WAY HUBBERT PREDICTED, AMAZING!!!!!!

Indeed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sure It applies to Uranium..,....The modeling of peak uranium, though not identical, would be similar. There would/will be a time when we have used up half of all the world's originally available uranium. As the 2nd half of the uranium reserve will be harder to get at, mine and collect, the uranium energy economy would/will slow at the halfway point.

No, it doesn't.

First off, we will never use half the uranium in the ground. We've mined and refined enough already to provide all our energy needs for thousands of years. There's enough economically recoverable Uranium suspended in earths oceans to last us for millions of years. At these time scales, geological processes (via vulcanism and plate tectonics) will bring up more supplies from the Earth's mantle well before we put a dent in what's already in the Earth's crust.

Uranium replenishes itself, it is a renewable resource. Hubbert Peak Theory doesn't apply to it.

Secondly, that's just dealing with Earths supplies. It takes one ton of Uranium and/or Thorium in an IFR or LFTR to equal 3.5 million tons of coal. At those energy densities, off-world reserves become economically recoverable. We know there are reserves of fissionable fuel on the Moon and we've already been there and back 5 times. Our reserves of Uranium and Thorium came to us from an ancient supergiant star that exploded between 5 and 6 billion years ago, seeding the gas and dust cloud that formed our solar system with heavy elements. Virtually any rocky body in the solar system between Mercury and the Oort Cloud will have recoverable Uranium in or on it.

[SpitfireIX]

"Specious", is that some kinda' curse word SpitfireIX?


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're making a lame joke. :rolleyes:

I probably am off by a few bucks, off in the "wrong" direction.


This statement makes very little sense; possibly you mean your estimate was low.

Consider this, ballpark, we have what, about 21 billion barrels of our own oil remaining, proven reserve? That is, the current US oil reserve amounts to some 21 billion barrels of crude oil give or take. We burn through 7 billion barrels a year here in the US, roughly 25% of the annual world oil consumption. 5% of the people burn 25% of the crude.

So if we didn't import any oil, this debauchery of ours would end in 3 years time, PERIOD. Game, set, match, done, and no way 'round it. The oil punch bowl would have been completely drained under such a scenario. We have other fuels, but without oil, lot's of the fun stuff would cease, at least in the short term.


Clearly, you have no understanding of the meaning of the term "proven reserves". Try Googling "economically recoverable" and "US oil reserves". Further, you are apparently unaware that roughly half of all US oil imports come from the Western hemisphere, and half of those are from Canada and Mexico. Less than a quarter of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf.

One feature of the US defense posture that is critical, is our being able to safeguard the oil shipping lanes. For example, the Japanese have NO OIL, they import everything for the most part. They count on us to be sure the tankers can make it to them.


Agreed; however, this isn't particularly relevant to your claim that the US spends at least as much defending our oil supply as we do for retail petroleum products.

The point here is that, outside the context of wars, actual wars, our Department of Defense PREPARES itself to deal with all kinds of contingencies that may arise in terms of the oil concern, the seeing to it that not only we "THE" people, but also the people of friendly countries, e.g. Japan, get their oil as well. It is a huge defense concern.


Responding in case North Korea reinvades South Korea is also a huge defense concern, and has nothing to do with oil.

This is outside the context of any war past, present, or future. It is an ongoing concern and will remain one as the United States has essentially NOTHING oil reserve wise, 21 billion barrels is NOTHING in the context of modern consumption habits, and some of our allies who depend on us to maintain/safeguard the shipping lanes have less than NOTHING. Major case in point, the Japanese.


Again, your assumptions about how much oil the US actually has are hopelessly flawed. Further, how can a country have negative oil reserves??

Who knows what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were are about. My sense is on some level oil is/was a factor.


This is just a guess, but the war in Afghanistan might possibly have had something to do with the Taliban's refusal to hand over the man who ordered the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. :rolleyes:

But so what either way? Even if it wasn't the case, even if the recent major US wars were not "about" oil in particular; Gulf I, Gulf II, Afghanistan, my main point is that the US has a perpetual and insanely EXPENSIVE and ever so awfully very much NOT disinterested ongoing military concern.


Total military spending of 4.5% of GDP hardly qualifies as "insane" by any reasonable standard, and, as I've demonstrated, the amount of this attributable to defending oil imports is just a small fraction.

We only have 21 billion barrels of our own oil left, and we burn through the stuff so fast, were we left on our own, denied imported oil, well we'd be the laughing stock of the planet in 3 years time. As such, we need to be prepared to TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE'S OIL at a moment's notice, and we need to be sure that the routes through which the oil passes via giant tankers are reliable day in and day out.


In addition to the fact that your premise is incorrect, the US does not plan to "TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE'S OIL". US policy involve ensuring that supplies and transportation are not disrupted by military action, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Iran's threats to tankers in the Persian Gulf.

This is a role played so very capably, in large part, by the US Navy.


And, as I demonstrated in my previous post, the entire US defense budget amounts to about $2 per gallon of refined petroleum products consumed in the US, and only a small fraction of this can potentially be charged to maintaining oil supplies.

The only reason that OPEC can charge us $5 for a gallon of gas is because of this tenuous situation. We are being extorted.


OPEC countries don't sell significant quantities of refined petroleum products. That aside, the price of crude oil simply reflects the point where the demand curve crosses the supply curve. OPEC certainly attempts to inflate prices by limiting production; how much the US could prevent this by reducing oil consumption is questionable.

My point was/is NOT that gas ostensibly costs $5 a gallon, and given the hidden military costs one must tack on $5 more to get our "total" cost for a gallon of gas, a total which includes the costs of building/operating/maintaining our carrier groups. My point was/is NOT that only in this way does one appreciate the real hit we take on this expense wise.


Whether or not that was your point, you were still wrong, as I demonstrated.

My point is rather that gas would be $1 a gallon were we not being extorted, had we not SQUANDERED our own reserve.


You are absolutely wrong about this. In 2012 dollars gasoline has has never cost less that $1.50 per gallon, and usually it's been much higher, including the time before the US was a net oil importer, and before OPEC (see here (http://www.twincities.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4302626 )). The main factor driving up oil prices today is increasing demand from China and India, as their economies continue to grow.

The military cost is not an up front dollars and cents amenable calculation. It is a much more subtle but VERY VERY VERY real cost, a VERY VERY VERY real concern.


This is absolutely true; however, one can easily demonstrate, as I did, that whatever the cost is, it's a small fraction of the retail price.

The best way to discuss this for the most part publicly, discuss it in a forum like this, is to suggest that the situation is more or less like adding money to an already high baseline cost of gas. But the problem of course is ever so much more subtle and EXPENSIVE.......


Granting this for the sake of argument, there's still no reason not to make a reasonable estimate, rather than making a wild guess, as you clearly did.

My main point turns on the obvious and irrefutable TRUTH that the stuff is priceless, and selling gas for $5 a gallon is little different than GIVING IT AWAY. $100 per gallon is more than reasonable, $500 a gallon is more than reasonable. $1000 for a gallon of gas is quite literally very reasonable.


I have no idea how you can claim that selling gasoline for $100 to $1000 per gallon is "reasonable". An overnight increase to $100 per gallon would result in the complete collapse of the US economy. If such an increase occurred over a period of a few years we might survive, but only the extremely rich would drive gasoline-powered vehicles; everyone else would switch to alternative fuels, and have a significantly reduced standard of living, as alternative fuels will not be economically competitive with oil at current and projected prices anytime soon. And suddenly the world's oil supply would be sufficient to last thousands of years, probably beyond the life expectancy of the human race. So what would be the point, economically?

Our "frame of reference" with regard to the true value of oil/gasoline is, was, and probably will be forevermore skewed, skewed due to poor leadership. Most American presidents, congress people, and senators are of average intelligence roughly, nowhere near competent to deal with such complex issues.


Frankly, neither are you.

Crude oil holds the energy of captured sunlight. Crude oil holds stored juice caught over millions and millions and millions of years, this orb of ours basking in the ineffable dark magic of sun soaked space-time.


This isn't a creative-writing contest. :rolleyes:

Once upon a space-time, the US had 150,000,000,000 (one hundred and fifty billion) barrels worth of stored sunlight. Once upon a space-time, the US exported oil. Now we only have 21,000,000,000(twenty one billion) barrels left. So we have manged to squander roughly 84% of our natural crude oil endowment in 152 years time, US oil having been discovered at Oil Creek Pennsylvania in 1859.


See above.

We hit peak oil here in the states in 1970, so we used up and sold 50% or 75,000,000,000(seventy five billion) barrels of our reserve over 101 years. That's 0.5 percent(750 million barrels) of our total reserve per year on average for the first 50% of our stash. Since 1970, we have managed to squander an additional 54,000,000,000(fifty four billion) barrels on NASCAR racing, my surfing trips to Bali and Hawaii, long commutes to work, RV BULL, and so forth. 54 billion barrels in 41 years. That's an average of 1.32 billion barrels a year, or 0.88 percent per year of our original reserve/endowment. These days(2012 rates), we cook roughly 3.5 billion barrels of our own oil a year. That amounts to 2.3 percent of our original reserve/endowment per year.


Ditto.

So it is an unprecedented squandering of the world's second most valuable natural resource, water being the world's most valuable natural resource. Not only an unprecedented squandering, but additionally, an unrepeatable squandering as well. Our oil, US oil, is GONE GONE GONE GONE GONE, 129,000,000,000 barrels of pure, unadulterated, irreplaceable stored sunlight. And because we blew it, wasted so much, and presently "need" so much, need twice as much as we pump in a year, the effective cost of a gallon of gas is way way way way more than $5.


Please explain how the "effective cost" is so much higher. I'll grant for the sake of argument that the cost of defense spending attributable to oil is $1 per gallon.

Had we had sensible leadership, were we to have sensible leadership, the price of gas at the pump would be far less than it is today. Of course the economy would be running more slowly too, but who really cares? "Not I", said the Patrick1000. And most ironically, the "true value" of the gas would be better reflected at this lower price in this alternate universe where we had say 80 billion barrels left instead of 21 billion left.


And if gasoline were so much cheaper, people would use much more of it, and we'd be back to the situation of using it much faster.

Better oil reserve stewardship would have lead to a larger present day reserve, and with a larger reserve, there would be less extortion. Less OPEC extortion would mean cheaper gasoline. Ironically and POETICALLY, cheaper oil being dispensed from a reserve of greater size would be VALUED MORE despite its lower ostensible "cost", lower visible "price" at the pump.


Your entire theory reflects a serious misunderstanding of the economic principles of supply and demand.

Crude oil is quite literally priceless. Among the fossil fuels, no other possesses such ease of extraction, transportability , versatility. When the free lunch has finally been done dang done gone and eaten, when the easily extractable oil is all gone, when the low hanging fruit has all been picked, it won't be the end of our American "modern industrial age". There is still nuclear power, coal, natural gas, oil shale, solar, wind, geothermal, but we will have lost, squandered, wasted, thrown away our endowment, our best fuel.


Please explain in detail how we could have significantly more oil today. Please base your comments on the estimated amount of economically recoverable oil the US has, rather than your misconception about "proven reserves".

I don't know what "specious" means SpitfireIX. I will have to look it up. I suspect it is a profanity. It most definitely sounds like a swear word to me. Tomblvd in particular takes exception to people's using these types of "big" offensive terms, these "should be" off limits words. I will not report you to the moderators for using such a term SpitfireIX, but I cannot speak/write for all of the other forum members here.


Your trolling is growing quite tiresome, Patrick. If you really didn't know the word you could have just looked it up in less than half the time you took to write the above.

[Anders Lindman]

How is this in any way relevant to this thread??

Patrick1000 wrote that peak oil is more than a theory, meaning more than speculation I think the claim was.

My conspiracy theory is not about the peak oil theory in itself being a conspiracy, but the possible coverup of global peak oil already having been reached. If it has, it should normally be huge news yet mainstream media is suspiciously silent about it. There are articles posted about peak oil from time to time, but rarely if ever as any major news story.

"Mar 18, 2012

...
Since the beginning of October 2011, some six months ago, the price of Brent Crude Oil Futures on the ICE Futures exchange has risen from just below $100 a barrel to over $126 per barrel, a rise of more than 25%. ...

Yet demand for crude oil worldwide is not rising, but rather is declining in the same period." -- http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_64370.shtml

That is inconsistent with the massive increase in demand of oil in what is called the New World in this graph: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f1f078669beddc23e000054/chart-of-the-day-moneygame-oil-demand-old-world-vs-new-world.jpg

From: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-24/markets/30658102_1_new-world-oil-demand-crude-oil

[Patrick1000]

Things are obviously done different here in the CT forum.

If I wanted to know whether oil had peaked, I would examine all of the oil production figures and see what trends were indicated.

Well psion, the "science" of peak oil is different enough that were you to "get into this", you'd have to change your approach to investigating the planet in a lot of ways. Well at least as far as studying this one subject you'd have to change your approach.

One cannot tell oil has peaked until a good long time after the peak. There are clues, for example here in the states, when the Texas Railroad Commission lifted restrictions on production, people in the know could tell in a way US oil production had peaked, but even then, there was no certainty.

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, they said in a video I watched recently (I don't remember which) that even with very advanced technology today it's extremely difficult to extract the oil, so Hubbert's theory may still be valid. On the other hand the global oil production has remained remarkably flat since around 2005! In an earlier post I speculated about how that plateau of global oil production may be a result of faked statistics since the oil consumption for what they called the New World (U.S., Europe and Japan) has dropped significantly in recent years and that I suspect is because of geological rather than economic reasons.

Correction. It is called the Old World (the U.S., western Europe and Japan) in the article:

"New World Oil Demand Blasts Past Old World

Oil demand is markedly different in the old world, which refers to the U.S., western Europe and Japan; and the new world, which is identified as the rest of the world, according to Ed Yardeni." -- http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-24/markets/30658102_1_new-world-oil-demand-crude-oil#ixzz1pYWbBJAZ

[Patrick1000]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're making a lame joke. :rolleyes:




This statement makes very little sense; possibly you mean your estimate was low.




Clearly, you have no understanding of the meaning of the term "proven reserves". Try Googling "economically recoverable" and "US oil reserves". Further, you are apparently unaware that roughly half of all US oil imports come from the Western hemisphere, and half of those are from Canada and Mexico. Less than a quarter of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf.




Agreed; however, this isn't particularly relevant to your claim that the US spends at least as much defending our oil supply as we do for retail petroleum products.




Responding in case North Korea reinvades South Korea is also a huge defense concern, and has nothing to do with oil.




Again, your assumptions about how much oil the US actually has are hopelessly flawed. Further, how can a country have negative oil reserves??




This is just a guess, but the war in Afghanistan might possibly have had something to do with the Taliban's refusal to hand over the man who ordered the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. :rolleyes:




Total military spending of 4.5% of GDP hardly qualifies as "insane" by any reasonable standard, and, as I've demonstrated, the amount of this attributable to defending oil imports is just a small fraction.




In addition to the fact that your premise is incorrect, the US does not plan to "TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE'S OIL". US policy involve ensuring that supplies and transportation are not disrupted by military action, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Iran's threats to tankers in the Persian Gulf.




And, as I demonstrated in my previous post, the entire US defense budget amounts to about $2 per gallon of refined petroleum products consumed in the US, and only a small fraction of this can potentially be charged to maintaining oil supplies.




OPEC countries don't sell significant quantities of refined petroleum products. That aside, the price of crude oil simply reflects the point where the demand curve crosses the supply curve. OPEC certainly attempts to inflate prices by limiting production; how much the US could prevent this by reducing oil consumption is questionable.




Whether or not that was your point, you were still wrong, as I demonstrated.




You are absolutely wrong about this. In 2012 dollars gasoline has has never cost less that $1.50 per gallon, and usually it's been much higher, including the time before the US was a net oil importer, and before OPEC (see here (http://www.twincities.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=4302626 )). The main factor driving up oil prices today is increasing demand from China and India, as their economies continue to grow.




This is absolutely true; however, one can easily demonstrate, as I did, that whatever the cost is, it's a small fraction of the retail price.




Granting this for the sake of argument, there's still no reason not to make a reasonable estimate, rather than making a wild guess, as you clearly did.




I have no idea how you can claim that selling gasoline for $100 to $1000 per gallon is "reasonable". An overnight increase to $100 per gallon would result in the complete collapse of the US economy. If such an increase occurred over a period of a few years we might survive, but only the extremely rich would drive gasoline-powered vehicles; everyone else would switch to alternative fuels, and have a significantly reduced standard of living, as alternative fuels will not be economically competitive with oil at current and projected prices anytime soon. And suddenly the world's oil supply would be sufficient to last thousands of years, probably beyond the life expectancy of the human race. So what would be the point, economically?




Frankly, neither are you.




This isn't a creative-writing contest. :rolleyes:




See above.




Ditto.




Please explain how the "effective cost" is so much higher. I'll grant for the sake of argument that the cost of defense spending attributable to oil is $1 per gallon.




And if gasoline were so much cheaper, people would use much more of it, and we'd be back to the situation of using it much faster.




Your entire theory reflects a serious misunderstanding of the economic principles of supply and demand.




Please explain in detail how we could have significantly more oil today. Please base your comments on the estimated amount of economically recoverable oil the US has, rather than your misconception about "proven reserves".




Your trolling is growing quite tiresome, Patrick. If you really didn't know the word you could have just looked it up in less than half the time you took to write the above.

My point about gas being a buck a gallon had to do with the leadership issue....

With better stewardship there would have been, there would be, more reserve and less demand. People would not want to drive , or even have a car period for that matter. That is, had there been intelligent leadership.

Driving around is a waste of time and energy, a waste of people's lives. You could be learning to play the violin, or the piano, or the banjo for God's sake, studying Japanese, kissing a pretty girl. Driving a car? What a waste.......

[Anders Lindman]

One cannot tell oil has peaked until a good long time after the peak.

Yes, the statistics of oil production must stretch back a couple of years at least probably to see if a peak is only local or the point of peak oil. The global plateau since 2005 is almost an anomaly: http://www.peakoilsupplies.com/world-oil-production-chart-graph.html

If it's true that even very advanced technology can do only little to lessen the decline in production, then such flat graph is not what is to be expected.

It's frustratingly difficult to find recent statistics. :mad: Here I at least at last found a little more recent graph: http://www.scitizen.com/cacheDirectory/HTMLcontributions/img/Conventional%20Oil%201.gif

From: http://scitizen.com/future-energies/time-to-worry-world-oil-production-finishes-six-years-of-no-growth_a-14-3714.html

[ComfySlippers]

Alex Jones and Jim Marrs talked today about how the ruling elite is preparing for a disaster and have underground bunkers and seed vaults etc.

Thats what the OP states.
(Bolding is mine).

Really? 3 pages based on that premise?

ETA: I only saw the OP because I got logged out and could, therefore, see a post made by the only person on my ignore list.

This message is hidden because Anders Lindman is on your ignore list.

[Anders Lindman]

Thats what the OP states.
(Bolding is mine).

Really? 3 pages based on that premise?

I don't think there will be a Mad Max scenario or something like that. And not much will probably happen with oil until after the 2012 U.S. Presidential election (so that Obama can win :D). Nevertheless there may be a massively serious problem with oil supply soon. But even that they can cover up with staged conflicts at oil delivery choke points (such as the Strait of Hormuz) etc as an excuse for a lower oil supply.

[Anders Lindman]

If there really is a really big problem with global oil supply at the moment, then they will have to do something drastic in order to make a coverup and secure Obama's victory in the 2012 election. A staged/provoked conflict at the Strait of Hormuz is then a possible option.

Map showing the location of the Strait of Hormuz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hormuz_map.png

[Anders Lindman]

Since this is the Conspiracy Theory section I can get away will a lot of speculations here :D, so let's look at a possible scenario for a conflict at the Straight of Hormuz.

The conflict starts with the U.S. Navy firing at Iran navy ships forcing them to fire back. The western mainstream media then is set up with beforehand prepared news articles about how Iran has attacked the U.S. Navy without mentioning that it was the U.S. Navy that started it all.

Here is a very recent news article as a part of a news campaign to prepare the public:

"Brent crude below $126, holds most gains made on Iran worries

(Reuters) - Brent crude was steady below $126 a barrel on Monday, holding onto most of the previous session's gains made on continued concerns over potential supply disruptions from Iran, with the risk of major supply squeeze still being factored in.
...
However, barring a supply shock, the upside for oil prices is limited, analysts at U.S. investment bank Morgan Stanley said in a report.
...
Iraq has also set up a contingency plan to expand its oil export routes to deal with any potential crisis should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz that is used for a third of the world's seaborne oil trade, a government spokesman said.

Another OPEC producer, Oman, located strategically on the opposite side of the Strait of Hormuz, said the risk of military conflict between Tehran and the West was rising but there was still plenty of opportunity to negotiate peace." -- Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/us-markets-oil-idUSBRE82B04920120319

[R.A.F.]

Anders is abusing the highlighter...someone take it away from him...

[Anders Lindman]

Anders is abusing the highlighter...someone take it away from him...

But seriously, check out the words I highlighted in that article. And compare with a trick like: "Don't think about a pink elephant." I suspect they are programming the public to start thinking in the terms I highlighted.

[R.A.F.]

But seriously...

Sorry, but I am familiar with your posting history, and simply can not take what you post seriously because of that history.


That's the result of posting irrationality does to a persons on line "character"...it destroys it.

[Anders Lindman]

Sorry, but I am familiar with your posting history, and simply can not take what you post seriously because of that history.


That's the result of posting irrationality does to a persons on line "character"...it destroys it.

We will see. :flamed: If I'm correct then you will be mightily impressed I bet. :)

[aggle-rithm]

We will see. :flamed: If I'm correct then you will be mightily impressed I bet. :)

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

[Anders Lindman]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

Ok, I will make my prediction even more impressive by picking dates for when this will happen: Tomorrow media will start trumpeting news about Iran flexing its military muscles around the area of the Strait of Hormuz. Then on Wednesday 3/21 there will be a military incidence between Iran and the U.S.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Ok, I will make my prediction even more impressive by picking dates for when this will happen:

No, you'll just miss by a wider margin.

[Patrick1000]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're making a lame joke. :rolleyes:

...


The point is rather simple , straightforward, TRUE.....

With better stewardship, the reserve would have been preserved to a greater degree. As such, there would be more oil remaining and less demand as well. Greater supply and less demand would mean a lower price.

Driving cars and flying around in planes for the most part is wasteful. Whether the planet has another 1, 2, 3 or whatever trillion barrels of crude oil yet to give up, the stuff is off the hook valuable and should not be casually used. Driving to the market for groceries is an idiotic waste of this insanely valuable resource.

Say we had twice our present proven reserve, say it was 42 billion barrels instead of 21 billion barrels. That is still only 6 years worth of oil at current US consumption rates(7 billion barrels a year).

Why are we pumping ANY of our own stuff? If ANY president had a half a brain they'd be conserving the stuff, our OWN OIL. It is counter intuitive, but if anything, we should be importing more, if that's what we want to do, drive around and fly planes for no apparent or inapparent reason.......

[Patrick1000]

My point about gas being a buck a gallon had to do with the leadership issue....

With better stewardship there would have been, there would be, more reserve and less demand. People would not want to drive , or even have a car period for that matter. That is, had there been intelligent leadership.

Driving around is a waste of time and energy, a waste of people's lives. You could be learning to play the violin, or the piano, or the banjo for God's sake, studying Japanese, kissing a pretty girl. Driving a car? What a waste.......

Best way to put this in perspective, and absolute truth here....The WORST DOMESTIC, THE WORST FOREIGN, THE WORST POLICY OF ANY SORT that an American president can engage in is a policy maintaining this status quo where we pump our own oil and consume it per the current hair brained DANGEROUS scheme.

[Anders Lindman]

Why looky there.......I made a mistake......

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

the article was published in 1998 and not 1996, I stand corrected.......

This was an interesting graph showing how the 'proven' oil reserves in the Middle East suddenly made a giant leap of increase: http://dieoff.org/page144.jpg

Sure, the amount of proven reserves depends on the definition so if the definition changes then that can change the amount, BUT then shouldn't we have seen similar jumps in other oil-producing countries in the world?

ETA: Hmm... Venezuela is included in that graph so at least one country outside the Middle East also had that sudden increase in proven oil reserves. It would be interesting to examine if all countries with oil reserves show such jump in the statistics (although I'm too lazy to research that at the moment, he he).

[Anders Lindman]

Hey! Doesn't this count as my prediction of Iran flexing its military muscles today?

"Iran will attack to defend itself: Khamenei

(Reuters) - In the face of aggression from the United States or Israel, Iran will attack to defend itself, Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday.

"We do not have nuclear weapons and we will not build them but in the face of aggression from the enemies, whether from America or the Zionist regime, to defend ourselves we will attack on the same level as the enemies attack us," Khamenei said live on television." -- Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-iran-nuclear-khamenei-idUSBRE82J0QX20120320

[Patrick1000]

If you sincerely believe this junk, and you believe it without evidence, then there is little hope for you...

But there is plenty of evidence for it, some would argue that the evidence is overwhelming RAF.......


http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/the-peak.html

Campbell and Deffeyes are serious petroleum geologists.........

Marion King Hubbert was correct about the US peak and he was/is correct about the world peak. The only unanswered question is "when exactly? "

As likely as not, it has already occurred. Whether that is indeed the case or not, there is no question that the peak will occur in the lifetimes of your grandchildren anyway RAF. Half of the world's total oil endowment, a quantity measurable in the trillions of gallons will have been squandered on Disneyland, never to be replaced, as it would be as difficult to replace as catching ever so much sunlight, hundreds of millions of years' worth of shine, in a bottle. Magic Mountain anyone?

Anders' excellent point here is that people try and hide this reality.

We know this because one can get around the obfuscation by examining technical literature as did Simmons. You see RAF, the Saudi politicians "lie", engage in creative story telling , for the sake of bettering their situation. But if one reads the technical literature and learns how much water needs to be injected into say the mighty elephantine wells of Ghwar to get the oil to flow, wel then, one begins to get a feel for the dire straights your grandchildren are in.

Don't take my word for it. Give Simmons' book a read;

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=559&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=b4io54ffZEwl_M:&imgrefurl=http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment


and Deffeyes book as well;

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1024&bih=559&tbm=isch&tbnid=OpK-wAa8A7uAVM:&imgrefurl=http://us.macmillan.com/beyondoil&docid=ePJZ2G0ntnr7dM&im


Read about the USGS perspective;

http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/oil/2worldoil.mideast.html

Take a look at the debunker perpective;

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/

Bottom line is, ya' can't make oil outta' sunlight, not in a lab anyway, and not without 500,000,000 to work with.

Party's over dude, Anders is all over this one. He is right. The sky is falling and people are scrambling to hide it......

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey! Doesn't this count as my prediction of Iran flexing its military muscles today?

No. It's just trash talk.

To count as muscle flexing it would have had to be accompanied by an exercise or a weapons system test.

And to be completely accurate on your part, this would have needed to be the last post you make here at JREF.

[Anders Lindman]

No. It's just trash talk.

To count as muscle flexing it would have had to be accompanied by an exercise or a weapons system test.

And to be completely accurate on your part, this would have needed to be the last post you make here at JREF.

Hmm... Ok, yeah it has to be actual military activity. BUT, I found this:

"TEHRAN, March 11 (MNA) – Iran plans to increase its naval presence on the open seas in the new Iranian calendar year 1391, which starts on March 20, in order to safeguard the country’s interests, the Navy commander said." -- http://www.oananews.org/content/photo/politics/iran-navy-reinforce-presence-open-seas-new-calendar-year-iranian-commander

:eek: Mars 20, that's today! Exactly the date for my prediction!!!

[Hans]

Bottom line is, ya' can't make oil outta' sunlight, not in a lab anyway, and not without 500,000,000 to work with.

Party's over dude, Anders is all over this one. He is right. The sky is falling and people are scrambling to hide it......

I guess you never heard of the German's synthetic oil production in WWII? In 2009 worldwide commercial synthetic fuels production capacity was over 240,000 barrels per day

I guess not, it works but its expensive, you should try reading up on a subject before trying to act like an expert.....

[Craig4]

snip

Don't take my word for it. snip

I think that we can take it as read that no one would. You've demonstrated the value of your word.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hmm... Ok, yeah it has to be actual military activity. BUT, I found this:

A link to a story posted NINE DAYS AGO.

[Anders Lindman]

A link to a story posted NINE DAYS AGO.

Yes, but I didn't know about that yesterday when I made my prediction. Honestly! So it was quite a surprise to see the planned date 3/20. The exact same date that I predicted.

But of course, the really hard part is for tomorrow 3/21 which is the date I predicted for a military incident between Iran and the U.S. lol. :D If THAT prediction turns out to be true, then I'm a fricken Nostradamus. Ha ha.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes, but I didn't know about that yesterday when I made my prediction.

You knew. You're just playing your childish little games as usual.

[Dcdrac]

Some interesting material here that help informed debate about this matter

http://www.iea.org/weo/overview.asp

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Some interesting material here that help informed debate about this matter

http://www.iea.org/weo/overview.asp

Found your problem for you.

We don't want "informed" debate. We want reckless paranoid speculation and ignorant self-absorbed ego-stroking.

[Anders Lindman]

Some interesting material here that help informed debate about this matter

http://www.iea.org/weo/overview.asp

They at least admit this much:

"Rising transport demand and upstream costs reconfirm the end of cheap oil
...
The cost of bringing oil to market rises as oil companies are forced to turn to more difficult and costly sources to replace lost capacity and meet rising demand. Production of conventional crude oil – the largest single component of oil supply – remains at current levels before declining slightly to around 68 mb/d by 2035." (page 4) -- http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/weo2011sum.pdf

That's peak conventional oil at least. If unconventional oil will make up for the loss of conventional oil is not clear (although I haven't studied the document in detail and that's only the executive summary).

Unconventional oil is:

"According to the International Energy Agency's Oil Market Report unconventional oil includes the following sources:


Oil shales
Oil sands-based synthetic crudes and derivative products
Coal-based liquid supplies
Biomass-based liquid supplies
liquids arising from chemical processing of natural gas[1]
" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil

[Anders Lindman]

Oh, no. It's March 22 already in Iran: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=246

That means that my prediction failed (unless something has happened and the news stories about it are delayed). Well, anyway, a military incident between Iran and the U.S. can happen later on. That's not much of a prediction though since many people are talking about such possible conflict.

[Anders Lindman]

The conspiracy is concentrated in the top mainstream media sources. Other media sources sometimes write about peak oil, such as this recent article:

"The Peak Oil Crisis: Parsing the Bakken

There is a lot of talk recently that "tight oil" as found in North Dakota's Bakken and other shales in the Southwest will save America from stagnant global oil production ...

The aspect of this "energy independence" story that the optimists continue to ignore is that, while oil production from shale may be climbing, depletion of our other sources of oil continues apace. Alaskan oil production is falling rapidly as is shallow offshore production in the Gulf and at least some of the offshore platforms are not turning out to be anywhere near as productive as planned." -- Full article: http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/11418-the-peak-oil-crisis-parsing-the-bakken-.html#ixzz1psus0qpL

[Anders Lindman]

"Global oil supply outages hit 1.2m bpd in March

Global oil supply outages are running at more than a million barrels a day, a Reuters survey has found, helping provide justification for the United States and Britain should they release strategic reserves in a bid to cut oil prices.

Civil unrest, adverse weather and technical glitches disrupted 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of global oil output in March on the 90 million bpd world market, according to a Reuters calculation from information provided by companies, government agencies and traders.

While disruptions of supply to the world oil market are commonplace, it is rare and perhaps unprecedented that such a large volume of oil is offline at any one time outside a single major disruption." -- Full story: http://www.tradearabia.com/news/CM_214659.html

Are "Civil unrest, adverse weather and technical glitches" really the cause of the supply outages? Or is the real cause global peak oil?

[Anders Lindman]

Is it really a coincidence that the EU countries having financial problems, Greece, Spain and Italy, are the biggest importers of oil from Iran at a time when the EU will put sanctions on the Iranian oil? Seems like a planned 'coincidence' to me.

RT - Iran oil ban to recoil on EU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTa6wf7QQt4

[Dcdrac]

still got enough time too switch to hydrogen so lets not worry

[Anders Lindman]

"Iran sanctions bring unintended, unwanted results

... "The sanctions are a real Catch-22 for the global community" says Hayat Alvi, associate professor of Middle Eastern studies at the U.S. Naval War College. "Given global interdependence, many fragile economies and their valuable recoveries will be hard hit...We're already starting to see some of the effects."

Asian powers such as China and India have already broadly signalled opposition to tighter sanctions, although Western diplomats say they may yet be persuaded. Despite promises by long-time Iranian foe Saudi Arabia to it would make up lost Iranian supply, there is widespread scepticism in the oil market that it genuinely has the spare capacity." -- Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/iran-sanctions-consequences-idUSL6E8EN4H020120323

Unintended results? Unintended? Really? :rolleyes: Catch 22? :confused::rolleyes:

[Anders Lindman]

Some say peak oil is irrelevant because improvements in technology can keep the production up.

"Please note that I’m not trying to state, as no economist is, that we do not live on a finite Earth. ... The argument is, rather, that while there are indeed such hard limits to availability they are so far away from our current situation that they’re irrelevant ..." -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/24/we-dont-consume-resources-we-create-them/

In the past I thought that the flat global oil production since around 2005 has been because new and improved technologies have been able to keep the production up so that instead of peak oil we now have plateau oil that can go on for perhaps several decades. But recently I have started to suspect that even the global oil statistics can have been manipulated! And that although new technologies can make huge improvements in oil production, they can't make up for the loss of production caused by depletion of oil fields around the world.

[Anders Lindman]

One important reason for why to get military control over oil-producing countries like Iraq and Libya is to stunt their economic growth. Why? Because otherwise the internal economic growth in those countries would very quickly, within a few years, given a peak oil scenario, have catastrophic consequences for the amount of oil exported from those countries.

This means that Iran may soon be attacked to prevent economic growth in that country rather than to cause a disruption of the Strait of Hormuz (which would only make a temporarily excuse for a lower global oil supply). And also Saudi Arabia may be next, with a war that destroys that country's economy and capacity for economic growth other than for the oil exporting industry. Venezuela and Brazil are other possible candidates for wars (or some severe internal conflicts or economic catastrophes).

[Anders Lindman]

It's important to uphold the illusion that there is still plenty of oil in the world. Otherwise the whole global economy can come to a halt. This is easy to do. We can simply introduce other conspiracy theories that oppose the peak oil theory, such as secret oil cartels manipulating the oil price and/or oil production on purpose being stunted to drive up the price of oil.