NationStates Jolt Archive

More Kunstler. He has a way of making things kind of "clear."

The American public is understandably happy to see the bottom fall out of the oil futures market. But temporary circumstances are only sending them another false signal that everything is perfectly okay on the oil scene. And it only reinforces the foolish belief that when prices go up it is solely because corporate finaglers tweak them up on purpose. In fact, these days it's the other way around: often prices go down because corporate finaglers are tweaking the markets, dumping positions, playing shorts rather than acting like real oil users bidding on real contracts for delivery for real purposes like making gasoline. When oil goes up, as it certainly will again, it is primarily because of geology -- what's left in the ground -- and secondarily because of geopolitics -- where it's left in the ground (and what's happening there).


The supernaturally warm winter temperatures have also played a part, keeping inventories high while the home furnaces idle. (Last week it was 70 degrees in Albany, NY.) There is surely some demand destruction in the background. Third World nations are increasingly dropping out of the bidding (meaning their generators quit making electricity and their trucks stop running). And a contracting US economy may also play a part. But even these circumstances may not overcome the supply problems in the real oil world. Here's what's going on:


As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia.


The Cantarell field is a horror story. Pemex, the Mexican national oil company, tried to conceal the dire developments, because Cantarell alone is practically the whole Mexican oil industry. But it is now self-evident that Cantarell is crashing, with a 40 percent annual decline rate projected ahead, meaning a couple of years and it's out. Mexico is America's second largest source of oil imports (after No. 1 Canada and before No. 3 Saudi Arabia). When Cantarell crashes, the Mexican oil industry will crash and the US will be out a major source of imported oil. The US will also be out of imports that were so conveniently close they could be shipped by pipeline rather than tanker ships. For its part, Mexico will be out of a major source of export hard currency revenue and as its economy crashes will probably become even more politically unstable -- meaning more Mexican citizens desperately seeking to get out. Guess where to.


Burgan is is in decline. The Kuwaitis announced it themselves last year. Daqing has been the major source of China's domestic oil, which is otherwise paltry, meaning Daqing's decline will only make China more desperate for imports. Ghawar remains shrouded in mystery, since Saudi Aramco does not welcome outside audits. But at 50 years old it is well past the mean age of peak production for oil fields and that alone probably tells the story. Beyond that, we know that Ghawar is producing with a (best case) 35 percent "water cut" (and perhaps much higher). They have to pump seawater into the field (a standard practice) to keep the oil coming out under pressure. The trouble is that they are getting this substantial water cut after redeploying their equipment for horizontal drilling -- an ominous sign. Saudi Arabia declared last year that it would increase production to 12 million barrels a day by 2009. By close of 2006, it appeared to have trouble producing 9 million, with prospects for a 4 percent annual decline rate in the years just ahead.


Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for geopolitical reasons that should be obvious.


Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was concerned.


The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces "oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007 (down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels a day. Do the math and see above (re: potential imports) for our prospects.


So, for now the US public (here in the East, anyway) is enjoying both a winter-of-no-winter and a season of comfortably lower oil prices. The financial markets are doing a triumphal dance in expectation of soaring equity values. And the news media is lumbering along with its head up its ass.


Last week, however, the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in an extraordinary session, heard testimony that the nation is in grave danger of a permanent oil crisis. Some of these senators affected to be shocked and surprised. What planet have they been living on? What is the nation getting for the hundreds of million of dollars paid to their staffers? Outgoing Republican chair, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), said to the witnesses that “what you told us today is absolutely startling with reference to the future.” Is it too early for a dumbfuck of the year award?


Perhaps the most valuable message the committee got came from Dr. Flynt Leverett from the New America Foundation, who said: “…there is no economically plausible scenario for a strategically meaningful reduction in the dependence of the United States and its allies on imported hydrocarbons during the next quarter century.” That's the straight dope and we'd better stop pretending otherwise.


We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy motoring. We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/01/the_cheap_oil_m.html

We're really screwed. Soon. Not in your children's lives, but probably in less than five years.

At this point, stockpiling food and weapons, and fortifying your house, sounds like a good idea.

Yep... interesting times up ahead...

I'ma buy me a farm. And a plow, and a donkey. And the donkey poo will be the fertlizer.

Here's an interesting PDF I found on Energy Bulletin.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~odland/Odland_PeakOilMgt_Dissertation.pdf

Here's an interesting PDF I found on Energy Bulletin.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~odland/Odland_PeakOilMgt_Dissertation.pdf

Oh, I don't need to read that.

Just watch the beginning scene of the movie, "The Road Warrior".

My life fades. The vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Road Warrior. The man we called "Max". To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed. Men like Max. The warrior Max. In the roar of an engine, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...

Oh, I don't need to read that.

Just watch the beginning scene of the movie, "The Road Warrior".

Great movie, but you should read the PDF. It's the straight dope absent the rhetoric. It's also not as long as it appears because it is full of graphs and tables and charts. Also, the type is big. :)

Great movie, but you should read the PDF. It's the straight dope absent the rhetoric. It's also not as long as it appears because it is full of graphs and tables and charts. Also, the type is big. :)

When everything starts to slide and come apart, I'm going to be laughing at the people who ask "where are the police?"

When everything starts to slide and come apart, I'm going to be laughing at the people who ask "where are the police?"

They're stuck at the station. Their cars are out of gas.

They're stuck at the station. Their cars are out of gas.

Oh, they'll walk off the job and join the looters, just like in New Orleans.

They're stuck at the station. Their cars are out of gas.

You should find a way to work donuts into that crack. Cops like donuts so much that it is funny.

We're really screwed. Soon. Not in your children's lives, but probably in less than five years.
Yeah, so what you gonna do?

Seriously, it's all well to point out the problem, and occasionally point to solutions for the nation or world, but what are YOU going to do?

Yeah, so what you gonna do?

Seriously, it's all well to point out the problem, and occasionally point to solutions for the nation or world, but what are YOU going to do?

*ahem*

I'ma buy me a farm. And a plow, and a donkey. And the donkey poo will be the fertlizer.

Yeah, so what you gonna do?

Seriously, it's all well to point out the problem, and occasionally point to solutions for the nation or world, but what are YOU going to do?

I've gone back to school to get a degree in petroleum geology. I've been back for three semesters now. Fact is, you'll be much better off in the future if you are necessary. In the worst case scenario, my family owns a farm in No. Cal. I'll go up there and learn to farm. Also, part of the reason I just bought a motorcycle is for the gas mileage. In the mean time, I'll keep posting about it and discussing it in forums like these and in my everyday life because the best solutions come from public knowledge of the crisis we face. We desperately need to talk about this issue or we will never do anything about it.

"As a baseline, it helps to understand that the four largest super-giant oil fields of the world are now in decline. They have been responsible for producing 14 percent of the world's oil supply. They are now old and tired (thirty years is old in the oil world) and they are in depletion. These are The Cantarell field of Mexico, the Burgan field of Kuwait, the Daqing field of China, and the granddaddy of them all, the Ghawar field of Saudi Arabia."


While the decline of these fields is a fact, all it really means is that they will no longer be the worlds biggest. It doesn't mean that there is no oil left. Neither does it necessarily mean that the price will skyrocket. Believe it or not, we are NOT running out of oil any time soon. Yes, we are burning the stuff up at a stupendous rate, but we are discovering new reserves even faster than we can burn it.





"Elsewhere, Iran is not only past peak, but its domestic demand is so high that it cannot maintain its export levels. The North Sea, which saved the West's ass through the 1990s, is now crapping out at a steep decline rate. Iraq is on track to Palookaville, despite substantial reserves, and even if, by some miracle, its tired old oil infrastructure survives the war, the US may lose access to future production for geopolitical reasons that should be obvious."


Oh yes, we couldn't have a debate about oil without mentioning the war in Iraq, could we?
Despite what you may think (or may have been told by the media), the war really was about oil. But it was certainly NOT about getting more of it. We didn't need to launch a war to do that - we could have doubled Iraq's output just by lifting sanctions. If we had simply repaired a few oilfields and pipelines here and there (yes, the ones that we blew apart in 1991 would have been a good start), then we could probably increased Iraq's production by an order of magnitude.
So why did we go to war? Well, the real answer lies at the heart of a criminal conspiracy (sorry, sorry, Alliance of Sovereign Nations) called OPEC.
OPEC is a cartel like any other, except that on paper it is made of governments rather than companies, which makes it legal. Like any other cartel, it exists to create the illusion of scarcity for a plentiful product, driving up the price, and most importantly, CONTROLLING the price. Any cartel needs one producer to be able to restrict supply on a whim. Iraq under Saddam filled that role in OPEC, at least until recently. Saddam was removed because he would no longer play ball with OPEC - he was jerking production levels up and down at random, upsetting the balance. This may seem like a silly reason for a war, but you cannot possibly underestimate the influence and power the oil industry has.





"Venezuela is past peak for conventional liquid crude and hurting badly for technical expertise to work its oil fields since Hugo Chavez purged the state oil company's management. Last year, Venezuela had to import Russian oil to avoid defaulting on contracts. Whatever the true condition of Venezuela's industry, Chavez is not disposed favorably toward the US -- he hosted Iran's president Ahmadinejad last week to signal that both of them were on the same page where the US was concerned."


The lack of oil flowing from Venezuela isn't Hugo Chavez's fault. It has more to do with the failed Coup d'etat staged by the US State Department in 2002, when US-sponsored operatives destroyed much of the oil infrastructure in Venezuela. That's why they need technical expertise.





"The situation in US production is grim. We peaked in 1970. East Texas is near total depletion, with a 99 percent water cut (it produces "oil-stained water). Prudhoe Bay in Alaska now has a 75 percent water cut. We're on track to produce under 5 million barrels a day in 2007 (down from a 1970 high of about 10 million), and heading relentlessly further down year-on-year. We burn through more than 20 million barrels a day. Do the math and see above (re: potential imports) for our prospects."


The less oil produced by Texas, the better, if you ask me. Texas is the source of much of the payola that funded the Bush / Cheney axis. Therefore the more revenue it loses, the more chance we have of getting some decent (read: non-corrupt) politicans into the mix. As for Alaska, the bulk of the reserves there haven't even been drilled yet, so stop panicking.






"We'd also better stop pretending that alt.fuels such as ethanol, bio-diesel, coal liquids, or hydrogen will allow us to keep up the happy motoring. We have to make other arrangements for daily life. We don't have a moment to lose. Our "to do" list is very long. If we waste our time in recrimination or hand wringing we are going to lose the things we value most, including an orderly society. So, don't be fooled by the temporary fall in oil prices. We're in the zone of the long emergency."


No, we're not. The world is not running out of oil. All we are coming to the end of is CHEAP OIL.
The amount of oil we have left depends on who you're asking - a geologist (who will tell you what there is), or an economist (who will tell you what is worth extracting at the current price). In the real world, we ask the economists. Therefore the reserve is dependent on the price - the higher the price, the larger the reserve is. There are loads of different grades of oil. The cheapest sort (that we don't have much left of) is light, liquid crude, which is easy to extract, easy to refine, and produces plenty of the fractions we need - gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc. The heavier the oil, the more expensive it is to refine into gasoline, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. For example, most of the reserves in Venezuela and Canada are in the form of Heavy Tar and oil Shale respectively. These are the hardest to extract and refine, but if the price is right, it will be done.
When will the price be right then? Well, when oil was hitting $60 a barrel or more in 2004/5, it was worth extracting this sort of oil. It will be worth it again when the prices rise, and they will. So what's the problem then? Well, there isn't one, really. The only real emergency is the prospect of prices staying low for a long time - but that won't happen, because OPEC won't let it happen.

The lack of oil flowing from Venezuela isn't Hugo Chavez's fault. It has more to do with the failed Coup d'etat staged by the US State Department in 2002, when US-sponsored operatives destroyed much of the oil infrastructure in Venezuela. That's why they need technical expertise.

I would like to see a single shred of proof for this claim...

...I won't be holding my breath.

As for the OP...remind me to move to a warmer state. :(

No, we're not. The world is not running out of oil. All we are coming to the end of is CHEAP OIL.
The amount of oil we have left depends on who you're asking - a geologist (who will tell you what there is), or an economist (who will tell you what is worth extracting at the current price). In the real world, we ask the economists. Therefore the reserve is dependent on the price - the higher the price, the larger the reserve is. There are loads of different grades of oil. The cheapest sort (that we don't have much left of) is light, liquid crude, which is easy to extract, easy to refine, and produces plenty of the fractions we need - gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, etc. The heavier the oil, the more expensive it is to refine into gasoline, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. For example, most of the reserves in Venezuela and Canada are in the form of Heavy Tar and oil Shale respectively. These are the hardest to extract and refine, but if the price is right, it will be done.
When will the price be right then? Well, when oil was hitting $60 a barrel or more in 2004/5, it was worth extracting this sort of oil. It will be worth it again when the prices rise, and they will. So what's the problem then? Well, there isn't one, really. The only real emergency is the prospect of prices staying low for a long time - but that won't happen, because OPEC won't let it happen.

I'll give you $1 million for a Dodo bird! :)

What matters in the end is flow rates. The most optimistic projections for Candian tar sands, for example, is about 3.5 million barrels/day when brought into full production by about 2020. That's enough to replace the flow of oil from the canterral field in mexico which will be gone by 2009. that doesn't address decline from the whole rest of the world, just Mexico. If SA is lying about ther reserves, which seems obvious, how do you plan on replacing the 5 or six million barrels/day from SA? The 3 million from Iran which is projected to be done exporting in 5 years? Everywhere you look you see decline and there are no energy reserves capable of filling the gap even marginally.

I've gone back to school to get a degree in petroleum geology. I've been back for three semesters now. Fact is, you'll be much better off in the future if you are necessary. In the worst case scenario, my family owns a farm in No. Cal. I'll go up there and learn to farm. Also, part of the reason I just bought a motorcycle is for the gas mileage. In the mean time, I'll keep posting about it and discussing it in forums like these and in my everyday life because the best solutions come from public knowledge of the crisis we face. We desperately need to talk about this issue or we will never do anything about it.

Not a bad choice for a degree, regardless of scenario.

But in the worst case scenario, farming might be good, but also community forming. At the very worst it's "every man for itself" but I doubt that will happen unless there's like, a plague or something. It would be every community for itself. Government would at last return to the local level! Unfortunately for most anarchists this is less than an ideal situation compared to what we are all used to. Most people - and I don't exclude myslef - are not seriously ready for a dramatic, permanent and global lifestyle change. It will be an End to the World.

That said, do you ever feel just for a moment like the folks hoarding things in preparation for Y2K?

Of course, given we are likely to face more warm weather like this in coming years, at least in the intermediate future, isn't it important to factor it in to demand? It's not a mirage if it's going to be highly likely that this kind of weather pattern will continue in to the future.

A steady supply of winter warm spells like this is going to have a huge effect on prices, especially considering that winter brings several million bpd of additional demand in to the system that might end up unconsumed due to warm weather. That's a big supply cushion that will likely smooth out prices considerably in the near future. And, of course, there is the fact that oil production hasn't peaked yet; production in July was up nearly 1.2 million bpd year over year, and has only fallen recently due to supply cuts.

I'm just not as concerned about the possibility of a major spike in oil prices now like I was back in the summer; in both technical and real terms, the market is well supplied with oil. We're making a lot of advances in this timeframe that are going to have a major impact on oil demand in the future; it's not a magic wand, but I am getting more and more optimistic with each passing month of stable oil prices and growth in alternative energy.

Not a bad choice for a degree, regardless of scenario.

But in the worst case scenario, farming might be good, but also community forming. At the very worst it's "every man for itself" but I doubt that will happen unless there's like, a plague or something. It would be every community for itself. Government would at last return to the local level! Unfortunately for most anarchists this is less than an ideal situation compared to what we are all used to. Most people - and I don't exclude myslef - are not seriously ready for a dramatic, permanent and global lifestyle change. It will be an End to the World.

That said, do you ever feel just for a moment like the folks hoarding things in preparation for Y2K?
No, because I'm a geeek and I knew that the fix for the Y2K bug was easy. In this case I study this situation very intensly and have for some time. you didn't see Bill Gates building a fortress before Y2K but you do see well informed people in the energy industry moving their money out of vulnerable industries and some of them are actually building fortresses, Richard Rainwater for one.

Of course, given we are likely to face more warm weather like this in coming years, at least in the intermediate future, isn't it important to factor it in to demand? It's not a mirage if it's going to be highly likely that this kind of weather pattern will continue in to the future.Unless they start to drive more in the winter. In anycase, you still have to factor in the fact that demand is going up in most oil producing countries so they are going to be using more and more of their own oil at teh same time as they are producing less and less of it. Production is crashing in Mexico... I mean it's a mess. It's all in the article and the PDF I posted in my second post.

A steady supply of winter warm spells like this is going to have a huge effect on prices, especially considering that winter brings several million bpd of additional demand in to the system that might end up unconsumed due to warm weather. That's a big supply cushion that will likely smooth out prices considerably in the near future. And, of course, there is the fact that oil production hasn't peaked yet; production in July was up nearly 1.2 million bpd year over year, and has only fallen recently due to supply cuts.We still have never matched output in December '05.

I'm just not as concerned about the possibility of a major spike in oil prices now like I was back in the summer; in both technical and real terms, the market is well supplied with oil. We're making a lot of advances in this timeframe that are going to have a major impact on oil demand in the future; it's not a magic wand, but I am getting more and more optimistic with each passing month of stable oil prices and growth in alternative energy.

What advances? What alternatives? I read about this stuff every day and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course, given we are likely to face more warm weather like this in coming years, at least in the intermediate future, isn't it important to factor it in to demand? It's not a mirage if it's going to be highly likely that this kind of weather pattern will continue in to the future.

A steady supply of winter warm spells like this is going to have a huge effect on prices, especially considering that winter brings several million bpd of additional demand in to the system that might end up unconsumed due to warm weather. That's a big supply cushion that will likely smooth out prices considerably in the near future. And, of course, there is the fact that oil production hasn't peaked yet; production in July was up nearly 1.2 million bpd year over year, and has only fallen recently due to supply cuts.

I'm just not as concerned about the possibility of a major spike in oil prices now like I was back in the summer; in both technical and real terms, the market is well supplied with oil. We're making a lot of advances in this timeframe that are going to have a major impact on oil demand in the future; it's not a magic wand, but I am getting more and more optimistic with each passing month of stable oil prices and growth in alternative energy.
You're forgetting the way climate change tends to make certain places colder(read: North Atlantic current.) Also, while many of you might have been having nice warm winters, we haven't exactly being doing peechy here in Colorado. In fact, I daresay it's the COLDEST winter I've ever experienced here. (Not that I've had more than four years worth of that, but meh. It's still colder than anything I've experienced anywhere else ever.) We're straining our heating bill just to keep the pipes from freezing. (Which is fine with me, because I hate having the house heated excessively beyond outside temperatures, especially when I am used to such temperatures and 70 degrees feels like a bloody oven.)

As for me, I've just plain given up caring. I'm a fat useless lump right now who has a decent amount of intelligence but no real education beyond high school and I doubt I could get any reasonably at this point. So I'm just going to keep on being like this till all hell breaks loose then let whatever happens happens. I've given up caring about anything I might have had real ambitions for. Politics, a family, all sorts of stuff...all of that was pictured for a world at least somewhat like our current one, though preferably with the free energy of our current one. But without it? I don't see myself actually managing to survive. I've grown up with and am far too used to the system we have now to adapt, I suspect, regardless of what I'd like to believe. So why the hell should I care?

Unless they start to drive more in the winter. In anycase, you still have to factor in the fact that demand is going up in most oil producing countries so they are going to be using more and more of their own oil at teh same time as they are producing less and less of it. Production is crashing in Mexico... I mean it's a mess. It's all in the article and the PDF I posted in my second post.

I'd like to know where the author got the information about 40% yearly decline in Cantarell. I know it's past its peak, and I know it's declining badly, even the Mexican government has admitted to it even though quietly. The figures I've seen are around 10 - 13% yearly decline; still pretty bad but not as bad.

Meanwhile the Mexican media barely ever touches upon the problem and most Mexicans are blindly unaware that this is happening and what it means.

You're forgetting the way climate change tends to make certain places colder(read: North Atlantic current.) Also, while many of you might have been having nice warm winters, we haven't exactly being doing peechy here in Colorado. In fact, I daresay it's the COLDEST winter I've ever experienced here. (Not that I've had more than four years worth of that, but meh. It's still colder than anything I've experienced anywhere else ever.) We're straining our heating bill just to keep the pipes from freezing. (Which is fine with me, because I hate having the house heated excessively beyond outside temperatures, especially when I am used to such temperatures and 70 degrees feels like a bloody oven.)

That's true, but the thing is, most of the US's heating oil (as opposed to natural gas, which is what I and most likely you use for heating) is consumed on the East Coast, where the temperatures have been warmer than average. So, this change is producing warmer climates in areas where more oil is consumed, reducing demand overall.

Now, obviously, there's going to be a similar situation with natural gas in the future (most estimates place it 10-20 years after oil peaks), so colder weather in natural gas areas is not desirable. The point is, however, that oil demand will be negatively affected if current trends continue.

As for me, I've just plain given up caring. I'm a fat useless lump right now who has a decent amount of intelligence but no real education beyond high school and I doubt I could get any reasonably at this point. So I'm just going to keep on being like this till all hell breaks loose then let whatever happens happens. I've given up caring about anything I might have had real ambitions for. Politics, a family, all sorts of stuff...all of that was pictured for a world at least somewhat like our current one, though preferably with the free energy of our current one. But without it? I don't see myself actually managing to survive. I've grown up with and am far too used to the system we have now to adapt, I suspect, regardless of what I'd like to believe. So why the hell should I care?

I have a feeling we will not have serious difficulty adapting to this challenge. I mean, each month that passes is another milestone in the fight against oil demand; technologies we didn't even dream of 10 years ago are now appearing on the shelves and in the car lots, and a lot of ways to avert this energy crisis are becoming not only feasible, but economical. I see massive growth in alternative energy and improvements in the efficiency of

Honestly, I'm not worried. Interested, but not worried. Obviously, I prefer to keep an eye on things and make sure I'm prepared for the worse, but I simply do not thing we will face a challenge from PO that will destroy any of the things we have now. We may have to cut back and suffer like we did in the 1970's, but that's hardly the end of civilization.

Parts of me hope you're right, Vetalia. Parts of me do. Not all of me(there's always that sadistic little part that wants everything to go to hell, yah?) but parts of me.

What kind of technologies do you think could help, though?

i really hope this is just fear mongering.

if true,the world will be plunged into chaos.

well the parts of the world that depend on oil that is.

i myself could do pretty good if the whole oil based economy ended,i would not prefer it of coarse.

i live in the north east,so i would probably be in for a world of hurt,not from the lack of heating oil,but from the throngs of people that would not be able to survive in a new world caused by oil shortages of epic proportions.
the millions that depend on oil or the state to provide for them would be out in the cold..no pun intended,not saying i dont depend on oil..i spend around 100-150 a week on fuel alone for my biz.
but i burn firewood for heat,and i have usefull skills that are applicable to survival.
i am also not dependant on the state for anything.

i do feel sorry for the 9 to 5 brokers and yuppies that will be left with no skills other then riding a keyboard or making trades.

not bragging,not in the slightest..but you really need to know more then your job to survive,and i am afraid sooo many only go to work,come home and pop on the plasma,have some wine and check their portfolios that they will be screwed.

then again,i thought i had heard recently that some scientist had found that oil reserves previously thought pumped dry were becoming active again.

cant vouch for that though.

i am certainly not a petro engineer,or a geologist.

Another thing I forgot to mention: While Mexico is certainly running out of oil from it's land based reserves, that doesn't necessarily spell disaster for their oil industry. Why? Because oil is also found under the sea bed. Even a comparatively small area of seabed can yield an enormous amount of oil - consider the amount extracted from the North Sea (the bit between Britain and Scandinavia). The Gulf of Mexico is an even bigger reserve, and is certainly within Mexican jurisdiction - they own it. So why hasn't it been drilled yet?
Again, the answer lies with price. The oilfields there are under more than a mile of ocean, which makes them rather expensive to drill. But it can be done, if the world oil price makes it worth doing. And yes, it will be worth doing very soon, because the price only needs to stay above $50 a barrel.

PsychoticDan - you're quite right about the "flow rate" issue. I'm not saying that we won't feel any pinch of oil shortage, neither am I advocating burning oil at our current rate. I'm simply saying that the world has not run out of oil yet. Refining and extraction technology hasn't improved much in the last 20 years or so, simply because it wasn't necessary. Soon, it will be, so it's a great business to be getting into, if you like that sort of thing.
Taking reasonable and entirely achievable steps to reduce demand (such as improving fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, to name an example) will help. But the biggest worry is that while oil production is a long way from peaking, the political uses of "holy-shit-we're-running-out-of-oil" haven't yet run out.


Delator - as for proof of State Department shenanigans in Venezuela - ok, I admit it - I made it all up.
The oil industry in the USA clearly has no influence at all over foreign policy.
The oil industry also never sponsors politicians, and so has no influence at all over domestic policy.
The US government has never supported (militarily or financially) any brutal dictatorships, despotic regimes or other "rogue nations" in order to further US business interests.
The CIA has never used it's resources to overthrow democratically elected leaders of less developed countries in order to take control of said countries to further US business interests.
The USA wages war to further the ideals of world peace and social harmony, and never just to protect US business interests.
The US government is and always has been whiter than white, is never corrupted at any level, and only has the good of the people at heart.
The US media always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

OR NOT!!!

I get the distinct impression that whatever proof I offer you, no matter how convincing, you won't believe it or accept it because you sincerely believe that your government can do no wrong.
It's not your fault. No really, it isn't. The mainstream media in the USA has a lot to answer for in cases like this. Firstly, most of them obediently toe the party line, and tend not to publish news reports that could be damaging to the ruling party. Secondly, they rarely publish news from overseas, and when they do, it's usually because we're fighting a war there.
The average American, getting news from mainstream media, will be more or less completely ignorant (not by choice, I hasten to add) of international news, and will only hear political arguments that the ruling party considers "acceptable". Again, it's not your fault. It's the media.
If you want to find independent, reliable news reports with no political agenda attached to them, you need to either escape into cyberspace, or read some books. Yes, books. Go into a bookstore, find the politics or economics section, and pick up any book by Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Joseph Stiglitz, George Monbiot, Paul Krugman, etc. These are not works of fiction. They contain detailed reports of what's really going on in the world (economically and politically) which you won't find in the mainstream media. Most of these authors also have websites where you can get more up to date news for free.


The real story in Venezuela is as follows:
Chavez was democratically elected fair and square, receiving nearly 80% of the popular vote. George Bush proved that he has a sense of humour, by stating that "winning most of the votes did not make Chavez's government legitimate".
As leader of Venezuela, Chavez is in charge of one of the worlds biggest oil reserves (and the number 1 supplier of foreign oil to the USA). One of the first things he did as president was to expropriate a share of the oil industry (previously controlled by Exxon, BP and Shell), and divert 30% of the revenue from said industry back into the local economy. This did not make him popular in the eyes of Bush, Cheney etc. The fact that Venezuela had the presidency of OPEC at the time (I'm not sure if it still does) disturbed them even more.
So, on 11th April 2002, Chavez was kidnapped - the start of a soon-to-fail coup d'etat under the direction of the Oil Industry / State Department (which under the Bush administration is the same thing). However, Chavez isn't stupid and was expecting such a coup. He had soldiers stationed in the basement of Miraflores (Venezuela's equivalent of the White House), who ousted the coup plotters the very next day. Chavez was back in office within 48 hours of being kidnapped.
The Media may have shown demonstrations against Chavez in Venezuela at the time. And there were. About 200,000 (mostly rich white) people marched against Chavez. But what the Media didn't show you was the pro-Chavez demonstrations, which were FIVE TIMES THE SIZE, and mainly made of native dark-skinned Venezuelans. Yes, that's right, the same 80% that voted for Chavez in the first place.

So, you could either read some non-mainstream news and get yourself an informed opinion, or you could continue to not believe me.
But consider this: If I had accused the British government of staging such a coup d'etat ot sabotaging national infrastructure, nobody would be objecting, or indignantly asking for proof. Why? Because the British generally accept the fact that their government is corrupted and that is has done despicable things in the past. We had an empire for 300 years or more, and did terrible things to foreign countries to sustain it. We also know that similar things still happen today, and you know what? Denial of wrongdoing doesn't do anyone any favours. A healthy distrust of what government is doing "in our name" is vital to the democratic process.

Another thing I forgot to mention: While Mexico is certainly running out of oil from it's land based reserves, that doesn't necessarily spell disaster for their oil industry. Why? Because oil is also found under the sea bed. Even a comparatively small area of seabed can yield an enormous amount of oil - consider the amount extracted from the North Sea (the bit between Britain and Scandinavia). The Gulf of Mexico is an even bigger reserve, and is certainly within Mexican jurisdiction - they own it. So why hasn't it been drilled yet?
Again, the answer lies with price. The oilfields there are under more than a mile of ocean, which makes them rather expensive to drill. But it can be done, if the world oil price makes it worth doing. And yes, it will be worth doing very soon, because the price only needs to stay above $50 a barrel.All you did in this paragraph was prove that you know nothing about Mexico's oil industry. They have no real land reserves and the field that has underpinned their production since the 70's, the Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico - the second largest field in the world - is in rapid decline and they have no other field close to that size to make up for it's demise.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AH703_MEXOIL_20060208202012.gif
http://static.flickr.com/64/188248781_c6be718c00.jpg

So, no. They don't have any fields waiting in the Gulf to be exploited. They're done with those, too.


PsychoticDan - you're quite right about the "flow rate" issue. I'm not saying that we won't feel any pinch of oil shortage, neither am I advocating burning oil at our current rate. I'm simply saying that the world has not run out of oil yet. Refining and extraction technology hasn't improved much in the last 20 years or so, simply because it wasn't necessary. Soon, it will be, so it's a great business to be getting into, if you like that sort of thing.
Taking reasonable and entirely achievable steps to reduce demand (such as improving fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, to name an example) will help. But the biggest worry is that while oil production is a long way from peaking, the political uses of "holy-shit-we're-running-out-of-oil" haven't yet run out.I personally believe it has peaked or is very close. All of our largest fields are in decline and when you look at the history of oil exploration it paints a pretty clear picture.

http://www.clv101.plus.com/vt/discovery.gif

Looks earily like this:

http://www.cprf.ru/clipart/misc/oil_discovery.jpg

In anycase, it looks pretty clear that new discoveries of super giant oil fields are a thing of the past. Mexico's not going to find another Cantarell and in order to fuel the world'd projected oil demand by 2015, just 8 years from now, the world will need to find and bring online two more Saudi Arabias. Do you have any idea how much corn we'll need to grow - organically so that we don't use oil in it's production - to produce that much ethanol? The tar sands or Canada and the Orinoco heavy oil belt in Venezuela, which should just be called the tar pits of Orinoco because that's what we're talking about - will never, even in full production produce 20 million barrels/day.


Delator - as for proof of State Department shenanigans in Venezuela - ok, I admit it - I made it all up.
The oil industry in the USA clearly has no influence at all over foreign policy.
The oil industry also never sponsors politicians, and so has no influence at all over domestic policy.
The US government has never supported (militarily or financially) any brutal dictatorships, despotic regimes or other "rogue nations" in order to further US business interests.
The CIA has never used it's resources to overthrow democratically elected leaders of less developed countries in order to take control of said countries to further US business interests.
The USA wages war to further the ideals of world peace and social harmony, and never just to protect US business interests.
The US government is and always has been whiter than white, is never corrupted at any level, and only has the good of the people at heart.
The US media always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

OR NOT!!!Please produce proof. The US has absolutely no interest in sabotaging any oil on the market. We need every drop available to world markets to keep the price as low as possible.

I get the distinct impression that whatever proof I offer you, no matter how convincing, you won't believe it or accept it because you sincerely believe that your government can do no wrong.
It's not your fault. No really, it isn't. The mainstream media in the USA has a lot to answer for in cases like this. Firstly, most of them obediently toe the party line, and tend not to publish news reports that could be damaging to the ruling party. Secondly, they rarely publish news from overseas, and when they do, it's usually because we're fighting a war there.
The average American, getting news from mainstream media, will be more or less completely ignorant (not by choice, I hasten to add) of international news, and will only hear political arguments that the ruling party considers "acceptable". Again, it's not your fault. It's the media.
If you want to find independent, reliable news reports with no political agenda attached to them, you need to either escape into cyberspace, or read some books. Yes, books. Go into a bookstore, find the politics or economics section, and pick up any book by Michael Moore, Greg Palast, Joseph Stiglitz, George Monbiot, Paul Krugman, etc. These are not works of fiction. They contain detailed reports of what's really going on in the world (economically and politically) which you won't find in the mainstream media. Most of these authors also have websites where you can get more up to date news for free.First, I know this wasn't directed at me, but drop the attitude. From what I've read in this post you're no better informed than anyone else here and less informed than many. You know nothing about oil, for example.


The real story in Venezuela is as follows:
Chavez was democratically elected fair and square, receiving nearly 80% of the popular vote. George Bush proved that he has a sense of humour, by stating that "winning most of the votes did not make Chavez's government legitimate".Agreed, so far.
As leader of Venezuela, Chavez is in charge of one of the worlds biggest oil reserves (and the number 1 supplier of foreign oil to the USA).
And here's where you start making shit up to fit your rhetoric.

1. Canada.
2. Mexico.
3. Saudi Arabia.
4. Venezuela.
\http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

One of the first things he did as president was to expropriate a share of the oil industry (previously controlled by Exxon, BP and Shell), and divert 30% of the revenue from said industry back into the local economy. This did not make him popular in the eyes of Bush, Cheney etc. The fact that Venezuela had the presidency of OPEC at the time (I'm not sure if it still does) disturbed them even more.True
So, on 11th April 2002, Chavez was kidnapped - the start of a soon-to-fail coup d'etat under the direction of the Oil Industry / State Department (which under the Bush administration is the same thing).And here's where you go off on your ideological tangent. The coup was supported by the State Department, but it was not run by it. They simply found some people that did not like him and they gave them some money. The oil industry had nothing t do with it except in that kicking them out, which was a stupid thing for Chavez to do, pissed off the administration. There were no oil company executives in back rooms plotting coups in Venezuela.


However, Chavez isn't stupid and was expecting such a coup. He had soldiers stationed in the basement of Miraflores (Venezuela's equivalent of the White House), who ousted the coup plotters the very next day. Chavez was back in office within 48 hours of being kidnapped.
The Media may have shown demonstrations against Chavez in Venezuela at the time. And there were. About 200,000 (mostly rich white) people marched against Chavez. But what the Media didn't show you was the pro-Chavez demonstrations, which were FIVE TIMES THE SIZE, and mainly made of native dark-skinned Venezuelans. Yes, that's right, the same 80% that voted for Chavez in the first place. Sure.

So, you could either read some non-mainstream news and get yourself an informed opinion, or you could continue to not believe me.
But consider this: If I had accused the British government of staging such a coup d'etat ot sabotaging national infrastructure, nobody would be objecting, or indignantly asking for proof. Why? Because the British generally accept the fact that their government is corrupted and that is has done despicable things in the past. We had an empire for 300 years or more, and did terrible things to foreign countries to sustain it. We also know that similar things still happen today, and you know what? Denial of wrongdoing doesn't do anyone any favours. A healthy distrust of what government is doing "in our name" is vital to the democratic process.

Yeah, you Brits, who elected and then reelected Tony Blair, are so much better than us yanks.

Get off your high horse and learn something about what you are talking about.

THis is why we need to build more nuke plants.

THis is why we need to build more nuke plants.

That won't solve the requirement in the Western world for portable power.

Such as cars, trucks, construction equipment, etc...

That won't solve the requirement in the Western world for portable power.

Such as cars, trucks, construction equipment, etc...

No, but it lessens our total demand on petroleum and buys us time until we can have an alternative source of fuel (like E-85)

THis is why we need to build more nuke plants.

What Eve Online said and also, the Nuke industry is heavily dependent on oil. Here's a picture of a Uranium mine for you:

http://www.fws.gov/easternwashington/Images/open%20pit%20uranium%20mine.JPG
So for each ton or two of Uranium some gigantic truck that probably gets 5 gallons to the mile on the deisel it burns has to drive several miles just to get out of the hole.

No, but it lessens our total demand on petroleum and buys us time until we can have an alternative source of fuel (like E-85)

E-85 is still 85% petroleum.

But consider this: If I had accused the British government of staging such a coup d'etat ot sabotaging national infrastructure, nobody would be objecting, or indignantly asking for proof. Why? Because the British generally accept the fact that their government is corrupted and that is has done despicable things in the past. We had an empire for 300 years or more, and did terrible things to foreign countries to sustain it. We also know that similar things still happen today, and you know what? Denial of wrongdoing doesn't do anyone any favours. A healthy distrust of what government is doing "in our name" is vital to the democratic process.

Sadly the British disdain for government has gone too far to be healthy: we've now reached the point where scandals are greeted with a resigned shrug and a "well, he's a politician, they're all the same". When elections come around, many people are so cynical that they simply don't vote, believing that a change in government won't lead to better politicians. A certain amount of trusting naivety is conducive to the democratic process.

Wait, so how long do we have?

I mean I've followed the social contract thus far (for the most part -sry about that christine) but it's all going down the shitter in like two minutes or something?

I only ask because my neighbor's car is a little bit nicer than mine, so ......

Wait, so how long do we have?

I mean I've followed the social contract thus far (for the most part -sry about that christine) but it's all going down the shitter in like two minutes or something?

I only ask because my neighbor's car is a little bit nicer than mine, so ......

Hopefully, you have no aversion to eating cat.

Anyway, you should worry more about things like the carry trade young man, rather than silly business about comodity prices.

Hopefully, you have no aversion to eating cat.

Not all pussy is stinky.

Anyway, you should worry more about things like the carry trade young man, rather than silly business about comodity prices.

What's the Carry trade? :confused:

What's the Carry trade? :confused:

Consider it a free education. Go look up why $200 dollar a barrel oil is not 24000 yen.

Consider it a free education. Go look up why $200 dollar a barrel oil is not 24000 yen.

Look it up where? I can't googleing "$200 dollar a barrel oil is not 24000 yen" doesn't bring up any sites. :confused:

Look it up where? I can't googleing "$200 dollar a barrel oil is not 24000 yen" doesn't bring up any sites. :confused:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=a0gK4Vt__cBU&refer=columnist_pesek

Yah. Most people think that a bond bubble is inconcievable (impossible_?).

However, much worse in the short term than oil running out, given that like 60% of US households carry a mortgage.

Yah. Most people think that a bond bubble is inconcievable (impossible_?).

However, much worse in the short term than oil running out, given that like 60% of US households carry a mortgage.

Think of the unsecured credit card industry.

Not only is it a problem in the US, it's a problem in Europe now.

Yah. Most people think that a bond bubble is inconcievable (impossible_?).

However, much worse in the short term than oil running out, given that like 60% of US households carry a mortgage.

Yeah, just another reason the financial markets are in trouble, but methinks when the peaking of world oil hits paper trades won't matter much to most people.

The PDF analyses are quite interesting (I only read it briefly), but unfortunately I don't see petrol rationing, odd/even licence plates and day driving as popular policies at all.

However, it does emphasise that we need to get off oil double quick.

Think of the unsecured credit card industry.

Not only is it a problem in the US, it's a problem in Europe now.

Not really. Greater fools and all that.

Edit: Though the UK is fucked six ways through sunday.

Not really. Greater fools and all that.

Edit: Though the UK is fucked six ways through sunday.

That's what I meant:

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=22904

It won't be long before the rest of the EU does the stupid thing.

Yeah, just another reason the financial markets are in trouble, but methinks when the peaking of world oil hits paper trades won't matter much to most people.

No. Because when paper collapses, the rest of it is irrelevent.

And paper will collapse long before the peak oil thingamyjig.

If you can no longer buy oil, it doesn't matter how much is left, does it?

Not really. Greater fools and all that.

Edit: Though the UK is fucked six ways through sunday.
Yep.:(

That's what I meant:

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=22904

It won't be long before the rest of the EU does the stupid thing.

Well, that said, only the US is a -ve net saver. And you'll have to give me a good reason why the rest of the EU is going to commit financial suicide given that they are about to watch the US/UK. (Possibly Aus).

And frankly, as fucked as the UK is, the US doubly so. People have no idea how far up shit creek this country is.

Well, that said, only the US is a -ve net saver. And you'll have to give me a good reason why the rest of the EU is going to commit financial suicide given that they are about to watch the US/UK. (Possibly Aus).

And frankly, as fucked as the UK is, the US doubly so. People have no idea how far up shit creek this country is.

Aren't the concepts of credit and market based on the illusion of trust?

Rather like a pyramid scheme...

Oh, the greed of banks will make the rest of the EU do the stupid. I never believed that the people in the UK would be that stupid, and there they are...

Aren't the concepts of credit and market based on the illusion of trust?

Rather like a pyramid scheme...

Oh, the greed of banks will make the rest of the EU do the stupid. I never believed that the people in the UK would be that stupid, and there they are...

No, I think the rest of the EU is okay because the UK is going to lead the hit and take it on the chin for them. Then, when the GBP becomes crap they'll fold into the Euro bailing them out to a certain extent. After which there will be statutory credit tightning saving the rest of the EU.

Credit tightning is already happening in the US. But there is nowhere to run.

I guess moral hazard is the words I am looking for.

No. Because when paper collapses, the rest of it is irrelevent.But there are all kinds of safeguards against the kind of paper collapse that led to the Great Depression. For example, the other day a collapse in some metal commodity triggered a trading stop. If financials fall to quickly, they can just shut down trade for a "cooling off" period. It's paper that doesn't matter when there's no oil to buy or when it costs more paper than you have.

And paper will collapse long before the peak oil thingamyjig. Depends on when you think Peak Oil will happen. I think we hit peak in December of '05. We still have not matched that output in over a year. This graph I thuink is close.

http://www.romaenergia.org/Problematicheambientali/IMMAGINI/peak-oil-gas-scenario.gif

If you can no longer buy oil, it doesn't matter how much is left, does it?

Even if the financials do collapse, you'll still be able to buy oil because people will have to sell it. If the dollar collapses then all dollar denominated assets will collapse with it - including oil.

Actually, if oil really does start to collapse, and an economic panic ensues, there are a few problems to clean up...

Most oil nations have borrowed heavily against reserves that are probably inflated or false. When this hits the news, the banks of the world will suddenly have a problem.

Not in the billions, but trillions of dollars.

I would expect a complete collapse of the banking system at that time, if it didn't happen before due to other causes.

Well, I think that the fear of a total breakdown is not necessairy.

The oil will run out in the longtime for sure, but that doesn't mean the end of the world, or a world wide civil war.

At first, the oil won't disappear from one day to another. The production will decline slowly, so we can take measures to prevent a total breakdown.

If less oil is exploited, people have to change their lifestyle to use less energy. It's not so hard to do so. There are a lot of small cars which only need four or five litres per 100 kilometer, you could extend public transports, upgraded insulation for houses save a lot of heating costs, etc. Perhaps people can't fly so often, perhaps they must wait for the bus - but they will survive this. Of course, some right wings in the USA think that it's their natural right to drive around through the suburbs with a truck which uses 15 litres per 100 kilometers, but they will have to learn their lesson. The rest of the world did it already...

And in the meantime, new energy sources can be researched and used. Solar and wind energy is expensive at the moment, but probably it will get cheaper, as there is much research done in this area. And if the energy is getting more expensive, it's more attraktive to use solar or wind energy. Nuclear power is another alternative, but of course there is the problem with the nuclear waste.

The "Peak Oil" isn't the apocalypse, as some people seems to think.

Actually, if oil really does start to collapse, and an economic panic ensues, there are a few problems to clean up...

Most oil nations have borrowed heavily against reserves that are probably inflated or false. When this hits the news, the banks of the world will suddenly have a problem.

Not in the billions, but trillions of dollars.

I would expect a complete collapse of the banking system at that time, if it didn't happen before due to other causes.

The truth is that these problems are all intertwined and will probably trigger each other. The housing collapse, for example, will be made much worse by Peak Oil. When all those new homes out in Palmdale go into forclosure and even at dramatically reduced prices people still don't want to move there because the 140 mile daily commute into the city for work costs more in gas than their mortgage payment well, you can see where that will go.

But there are all kinds of safeguards against the kind of paper collapse that led to the Great Depression. For example, the other day a collapse in some metal commodity triggered a trading stop. If financials fall to quickly, they can just shut down trade for a "cooling off" period. It's paper that doesn't matter when there's no oil to buy or when it costs more paper than you have.

There really isn't. People would like you to think that your paper can't go to zero value. But it can.



Even if the financials do collapse, you'll still be able to buy oil because people will have to sell it. If the dollar collapses then all dollar denominated assets will collapse with it - including oil.

So how many of my pets.com stock do you think they'll take per barrel?

There really isn't. People would like you to think that your paper can't go to zero value. But it can.

So how many of my pets.com stock do you think they'll take per barrel?

It's funny how a group of people with loaded firearms often have more credibility and credit in such situations than unarmed people holding paper.

So how many of my pets.com stock do you think they'll take per barrel?If the new currency is rocks, they'll take it over nothing. Whatever the currency is balanced in, someone has ol and there life depends on selling it and someone else's life depends on buying it. There will be some kind of trade.

If the new currency is rocks, they'll take it over nothing. Whatever the currency is balanced in, someone has ol and there life depends on selling it and someone else's life depends on buying it. There will be some kind of trade.

I think the new currency would be flying lead.

So how many of my pets.com stock do you think they'll take per barrel?

Also, I hope that's not all you have. :confused: You didn't bet the farm on pets.com, did you?

I think the new currency would be flying lead.

There may be a lot of that flying around, but people will need other people to do things like build chairs and make clothes and retail farmed produce and you can't get a lot of that done by shooting people. I personally don't believe that we're going to see a complete collapse of the global economic network, just a very painful transition back to community centered living, but even if we do people will figure out a currency system so that they can trade because their lives will depend on it.

Also, I hope that's not all you have. :confused: You didn't bet the farm on pets.com, did you?

Nope. I never put a penny in the .bombs. The intertubes won't change the way people chew gum.

My point is that you think that some kind of paper value can be maintained, when obviously it can't. Even if trying to do so is in the best interest of the public.

Which is why the US buying overseas oil is the least of our fucking worries. (Well your worries, not mine actually).

Oh, and forget going to school to study this oil thing unless you have the cash in hand to pay up front.

It's funny how a group of people with loaded firearms often have more credibility and credit in such situations than unarmed people holding paper.

I play 'survivalist' with a few chicks from time to time. Occasionally we bring a few guys along.

What always amazes me is how much faster women get your rule than men.

Nope. I never put a penny in the .bombs. The intertubes won't change the way people chew gum.

My point is that you think that some kind of paper value can be maintained, when obviously it can't. Even if trying to do so is in the best interest of the public.No, actually I think a collapse in the dollar is coming fast, I just don't think it will end liquidity and trade. It will make a lot of rich and middle class people poor, though, but there will be a currency for trade whether it's the Euro or the Yen or the watchamacallit.

Which is why the US buying overseas oil is the least of our fucking worries. (Well your worries, not mine actually).

Oh, and forget going to school to study this oil thing unless you have the cash in hand to pay up front.

I do. :) I'm not going on loans.

No, actually I think a collapse in the dollar is coming fast, I just don't think it will end liquidity and trade. It will make a lot of rich and middle class people poor, though, but there will be a currency for trade whether it's the Euro or the Yen or the watchamacallit.


It won't. All it means is only companies like Boeing and GE will be able to buy non domestic oil directly. Which means huge prices at the pump well before any type of comodity squeeze comes into play.

Face it, its not the lack of oil which is the US's problem. We reached 'peak' productivity a while back and that is what is going to fuck it.

E-85 is still 85% petroleum.

Uh...isn't it called "E-85" because the Ethanol content is 85%? I think you have it backwards. 'Cause "E-10" is 10% ethanol...and gets me worse mileage, I might add.

Since moving to North Dakota, I've had to tone down my "ethanol-is-bunk" rhetoric. They think corn is basically the messiah here. Problem is, you can't grow as much if you don't use petroleum products as part of the process, which means that currently, it's somehting like 1.3 gallons of petroleum for every 1 gallon of ethanol.

ADM already made corn "indispensible" by ensuring that corn syrup replaced sugar in damn near everything. Now they and other agribusiness oncerns are touting the false hope of ethanol because it benefits them in the short and medium term, but does nothing to reduce our dependence upon oil.

God, I hope no native NoDaks are catching this post....

Honestly, I'm not too worried. Despite Kunstler's alarmism, our societies are not going to grind to a halt because of the end of cheap oil. We will still be able to generate large quantities of electricity, either through coal, nuclear or increasingly through renewables. As long as we have electricity, we can power the most important parts of our modern society.

Not only that, but at a cost of a several billion (chump change really, when you consider the costs of other less-essential programs) we could embark on a crash program to improve energy efficiency in all facets of life. One way to save mountains of energy would be a program to replace old, inefficient appliances with modern, efficient ones. Just as one example, I've been told that a flat-panel LCD monitor uses a quarter to a third of the energy of an old CRT monitor. I think everyone is familiar with the savings provided by switching to CFT light bulbs from incandescent. Another big energy savings could be realized with a program to improve home energy efficiency in winter. Existing homes could be retrofitted with better insulation, double-paned windows, etc, to cut the need for home heating in the winter and home cooling in the summer.

I've heard people say that the US wastes enough electricity every year to meet Japan's current electricity needs. With a comprehensive energy efficiency program, our current power generating infrastructure would be more than adequate to power us, even in a world with expensive oil.

As for transportation, I ride a bike to work so I don't really care. ;) Seriously though, I think that people would need to be smarter about their commute. Car pooling alone would cut consumption dramatically, as well as reduce traffic congestion. Public transit would have to run more often and on more routes. Tele-commuting would probably become even more popular. If companies busted their butts, there could be a large number of 100 mpg automobiles on the market within a couple of years. We would have to deal with cars with much less power, but that would be a relatively quick adjustment.

Basically, I think cheap oil running low is something that we should prepare for, but it's not going to be the end of society as we know it. If we can come together and cooperate, there's no reason why the transition away from an oil economy has to be a major disruption in people's lives. The energy crisis of the 70s showed how well people were able to quickly implement energy-saving measures. Any upcoming crisis will be no different.

Greetings Mr. PsychoticDan,


"All you did in this paragraph was prove that you know nothing about Mexico's oil industry. They have no real land reserves and the field that has underpinned their production since the 70's, the Cantarell field in the Gulf of Mexico - the second largest field in the world - is in rapid decline and they have no other field close to that size to make up for it's demise."

Hold on a second - Mexico has no real land reserves?
So the map you have produced is inaccurate, is it?
Ok, so I don't know as much about oil as you - but I can read a map.




"In anycase, it looks pretty clear that new discoveries of super giant oil fields are a thing of the past. Mexico's not going to find another Cantarell and in order to fuel the world'd projected oil demand by 2015, just 8 years from now, the world will need to find and bring online two more Saudi Arabias. Do you have any idea how much corn we'll need to grow - organically so that we don't use oil in it's production - to produce that much ethanol? The tar sands or Canada and the Orinoco heavy oil belt in Venezuela, which should just be called the tar pits of Orinoco because that's what we're talking about - will never, even in full production produce 20 million barrels/day."

Believe it or not, I do agree with you on this point. Of course tar sands or oil shale will never yield the same production rate as liquid oil wells - that much is obvious. My point was really about the amount of reserves that exist - for example, the tar sands in Alberta, Canada hold 280 billion barrels. Just in one field. But with enough investment in refinery capacity and new refining technologies, coupled with a real drive towards fuel / energy efficiency, we should be able to cope with this.




"The US has absolutely no interest in sabotaging any oil on the market. We need every drop available to world markets to keep the price as low as possible."

Ok, fine, you're forcing me to be pedantic now, but here goes:
You have to differentiate between what you mean by "We". If you mean the average consumer of oil / oil based products, then you're absolutely right, you do want as much oil as possible at as low a price as possible, and "We" have no interest in sabotaging oil. But the world oil market is not that simple.

The world oil market is controlled by OPEC. OPEC is in the business of suppressing oil production, not promoting it. That's why every member of OPEC has a quota which it isn't allowed to exceed, even if it is able to (many OPEC members are technically capable of production levels many times higher than their quota, but are prevented from achieving this). Why is this the case? Because the price of oil, like any other commodity, is dictated by the laws of supply and demand. So by restricting supply, the price is raised. The salient point here is that the OPEC price is fixed for all OPEC members, irrespective of what it actually costs to pump the oil from the ground in each individual member state. Therefore when prices rise, the profits rise for all member states.
So what if the price is fixed at a level underneath what it costs to extract the oil? Well, that oil won't be extracted then. As I've said before, the oil reserve is measured by price - the higher the price, the higher the reserve.

If the oil market were a truly free market where the laws of supply and demand were not perverted or manipulated, then you would be quite correct. The USA as a consumer in a global free market in oil would indeed have absolutely no interest in sabotaging any oil on the market.
However, OPEC does have a powerful interest in restricting supply, by any means necessary in some cases. Deliberate sabotage is rare, but is not without precedent, particularly in Iraq, where oil production has been suppressed for the last 100 years.




"As leader of Venezuela, Chavez is in charge of one of the worlds biggest oil reserves (and the number 1 supplier of foreign oil to the USA).
And here's where you start making shit up to fit your rhetoric."

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I didn't actually mean to make this bit up - I just neglected to include a bit more detail. I'm well aware that Venezuela is not currently the number 1 supplier of foreign oil to the USA, but it has been in the past. Particularly in the 1970's - it was Venezuela that broke the back of the Arab oil embargo by increasing output from it's reserves way beyond it's OPEC quota.




"Yeah, you Brits, who elected and then reelected Tony Blair, are so much better than us yanks.
Get off your high horse and learn something about what you are talking about."

I'm not on my "high horse". I never claimed any sort of moral high ground. Quite the opposite, in fact. The British don't rule the world any more, and we know it. We barely even rule our own country, thanks to the European Union. It's quite gratifying in fact to find a "yank" who hates Tony Blair just as much as we do (I didn't vote for him, btw). My point is that the British have accepted the fact that everyone in a position of power also has an ulterior motive, which more often than not has sinister or unpleasant consequences in other parts of the world. This doesn't make us "better" than you - some might argue that it in fact makes us worse. But at least we don't act all indignant and surprised when we find out about some shady deal that our leaders have been plotting.