Has Global Peak Oil been reached?

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

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

Name several.

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Name several.

Eugene Mallove, Stanley Meyer and Brian O'Leary.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by 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.

Would the cat be dead or alive?

[JohnG]

Yes

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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

[Patrick1000]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

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]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

"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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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??

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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). The main factor driving up oil prices today is increasing demand from China and India, as their economies continue to grow.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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?

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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.

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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".

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

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/publis...le_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/i...-new-world.jpg

From: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...mand-crude-oil

[Patrick1000]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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/...#ixzz1pYWbBJAZ

[Patrick1000]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

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




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.




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). 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.




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]

Originally Posted by Patrick1000

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...art-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. Here I at least at last found a little more recent graph: http://www.scitizen.com/cacheDirecto...%20Oil%201.gif

From: http://scitizen.com/future-energies/...a-14-3714.html

[ComfySlippers]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

[Anders Lindman]

Originally Posted by ComfySlippers

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 ). 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 , 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/...82B04920120319