NationStates Jolt Archive

As we stand atop the dizzying, intoxicating heights of current world oil production, our gaze is diverted downwards, for that is where we are destined to plunge: into the misty uncertainties of a world governed by scarcity. As stockpiles inexorably dwindle, we are forced to pose difficult questions and analyze the coming crisis. Should events proceed as predicted, the US economy may be shattered, casting the world into turmoil not seen since the Great Depression. Clearly, it is necessary to conserve not only energy, but maintain our standing in the topsy-turvy realm of geopolitics.

Our most potent tool for avoiding our dismal future is our military -- unrivaled in strength and unmatched in discipline. However, from our current elated station, we can see the machinery in China ceaselessly churning in an effort to narrow the gap between us. If we must strike, this may be our only opportunity -- within a few decades, we may not be able to project our power globally.

Considering our predicament and present might, it is logical to employ our strengths to the utmost. What I am proposing, although not the most beneficent plan, is our only recourse should we seek to avert utter catastrophe, for from its black depths demagogic fiends such as Hitler and Stalin emerged, mercilessly enveloping the world in a frenzied orgy of evil and bloodshed.

We must assume complete control of the oil-production apparatuses of various Middle-Eastern nations; this may be accomplished either through sheer military force or tactful diplomacy. The easiest targets would be subjugated first. Listed below are the choice nations and their daily oil production in millions of barrels per day.

Kuwait: 2.418.
UAE: 2.6.
Qatar: 0.828.
Kazakhstan: 1.376.
Yemen: 0.372.

This, along with domestic production, will satisfy above 50% of our oil requirements (which stand at 20 million barrels per day). This show of force will secure us vital reserves and also allow us to bargain with a better hand; should countries enact an embargo against us, the following targets could be summarily invaded.

Saudi Arabia: 9.35.
Iran: 4.09.
Norway: 2.45.

Added together, this yields around 30.5 million barrels per day -- enough to last us for some time to come, ensure our continuing dominance in the world, and thus prevent despair from impregnating the world with its icy grip.

Note that I did not delve into military details when discussing these incursions; that is because, should we abandon techniques which seek to limit collateral damage, we could desolate the nations listed simply enough with our superior air power, allowing our troops to march in virtually unopposed.

That's stupid. So much easier and cheaper to just buy it from them.

That's stupid. So much easier and cheaper to just buy it from them.

As our trade deficit widens, our social programs creak under strain, and our budget remains mired in the red, it would be dangerous if not downright reckless to rely on our continued ability to import Middle-Eastern oil. China needs oil to nurture its fantastic growth, as does the rest of the world; we are not the sole purchasers of the resource. The only way to ensure that we will have access to an adequate supply of oil would be to physically control it ourselves.

As our trade deficit widens, our social programs creak under strain, and our budget remains mired in the red, it would be dangerous if not downright reckless to rely on our continued ability to import Middle-Eastern oil. China needs oil to nurture its fantastic growth, as does the rest of the world; we are not the sole purchasers of the resource. The only way to ensure that we will have access to an adequate supply of oil would be to physically control it ourselves.
You know, for a Freedom and Glory guy you sure don't know a lot about capitalism. If we were to use military forse we would have to pay for the equipment, people and oil to do it and we would have to do it by taxing people and companies and we'd have to do it through governement expenditure...

Or we could let our market based system do what it is supposed to do, let the price of oil climb and allow the people and infrastructure to adapt to the new realities. You're going to spend the money either through funding a massive war effort the likes of which the world has never seen, or by allowing the market to adjust to scarcity. The latter is cheaper, easier and less people die - and by that I mean American soldiers since I know you don't care about anyone else. The former is extremely expensive in treasure and lives, extremely inefficient since you have to spend much more oil just to get the same amount and also only delays the inevitable for a few years at best.

You know, you should go here:

http://necroticobsession.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=38451&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

And talk to my friend about all this. Seeing as how he's in Iraq fighting as we speak he might have an interesting take on your assumptions about what teh military is capable of.

As we stand atop the dizzying, intoxicating heights of current world oil production, our gaze is diverted downwards, for that is where we are destined to plunge: into the misty uncertainties of a world governed by scarcity. As stockpiles inexorably dwindle, we are forced to pose difficult questions and analyze the coming crisis. Should events proceed as predicted, the US economy may be shattered, casting the world into turmoil not seen since the Great Depression. Clearly, it is necessary to conserve not only energy, but maintain our standing in the topsy-turvy realm of geopolitics.

Our most potent tool for avoiding our dismal future is our military -- unrivaled in strength and unmatched in discipline. However, from our current elated station, we can see the machinery in China ceaselessly churning in an effort to narrow the gap between us. If we must strike, this may be our only opportunity -- within a few decades, we may not be able to project our power globally.

Considering our predicament and present might, it is logical to employ our strengths to the utmost. What I am proposing, although not the most beneficent plan, is our only recourse should we seek to avert utter catastrophe, for from its black depths demagogic fiends such as Hitler and Stalin emerged, mercilessly enveloping the world in a frenzied orgy of evil and bloodshed.

We must assume complete control of the oil-production apparatuses of various Middle-Eastern nations; this may be accomplished either through sheer military force or tactful diplomacy. The easiest targets would be subjugated first. Listed below are the choice nations and their daily oil production in millions of barrels per day.

Kuwait: 2.418.
UAE: 2.6.
Qatar: 0.828.
Kazakhstan: 1.376.
Yemen: 0.372.

This, along with domestic production, will satisfy above 50% of our oil requirements (which stand at 20 million barrels per day). This show of force will secure us vital reserves and also allow us to bargain with a better hand; should countries enact an embargo against us, the following targets could be summarily invaded.

Saudi Arabia: 9.35.
Iran: 4.09.
Norway: 2.45.

Added together, this yields around 30.5 million barrels per day -- enough to last us for some time to come, ensure our continuing dominance in the world, and thus prevent despair from impregnating the world with its icy grip.

Note that I did not delve into military details when discussing these incursions; that is because, should we abandon techniques which seek to limit collateral damage, we could desolate the nations listed simply enough with our superior air power, allowing our troops to march in virtually unopposed.

Or, rather than spewing out trillions of nonexistent dollars in such an imperialist escapade, we could use a mere fraction of that to make more nuclear power plants and let electric car technology take care of the rest.

You know, you should go here:

http://necroticobsession.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=38451&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

And talk to my friend about all this. Seeing as how he's in Iraq fighting as we speak he might have an interesting take on your assumptions about what teh military is capable of.

You do remember FAG said that the biggest contributors to Iraq weren't the soldiers roughing it out and getting killed, but the Bushevik Chickenhawks who stay behind and keep pushing "Stay the Course."

I'm really starting to look forward to these.

Note that I did not delve into military details when discussing these incursions; that is because, should we abandon techniques which seek to limit collateral damage, we could desolate the nations listed simply enough with our superior air power, allowing our troops to march in virtually unopposed.

Like Iraq?

That is really a typical imperialist American way of thinking.
What about reducing the reliance on this poluting resource?
Frankly I am very much looking forward to the end of The Oil Age; bring on the Post Industrial Stone Age.

Like Iraq?

That is really a typical imperialist American way of thinking.
What about reducing the reliance on this poluting resource?
Frankly I am very much looking forward to the end of The Oil Age; bring on the Post Industrial Stone Age.

Please don't assume all Americans agree with the bullshit drivel spewed by this Bushevik tool. It's rather insulting for us who are trapped in 8 years of an inmate-run asylum with no real means of throwing the coke-snorting fratboy out before his term expires.

Golly gee. Yet another thread in which F&G wanks to the idea of raping nations, murdering civilians and causing the downfall of the world.

Newsflash: If you ever attempt to do this kind of atrocity, the world will stop you, like it stopped Hitler.

*The OP*
I'm pretty sure that Russia would summarily kick your arse if you tried to take Khazakhstan, Iran or Norway.

Incidentally, the British Army is patently more disciplined than your own guys, seeing as we have much higher kill:loss rates, and have managed to get 3 of our 4 provences basically handed over to the Iraqis at this point.

Snip. Great. Uh-hu. Snip. Yep.
Yeah. It seems like you got it all figured out. Let's do as you propose.

Every time I think FnG's prose couldn't get purpler, he tops himself. I mean srsly, did you copy it out of a romance novel and change the nouns and verbs? Good for a laugh, at least.

I was going to post something relavent untill I realised it was a FaG thread. If I post something here it'll be taken out of context or ignored. =/

I'm not sure how I agree with the "Yay for me, and the fuck with everyone else approach" in foreign economic policy.

If you're a Bushevik, it comes naturally. For everyone else, it's "O-BEY!! OR THE TER-RO-RISTS WIN!!"

Not so sure about the other stuff, but I'm all for showing those damn Norwegians what's up.

I'm not sure how I agree with the "Yay for me, and the fuck with everyone else approach" in foreign economic policy.

If you're a Bushevik, it comes naturally. For everyone else, it's "O-BEY!! OR THE TER-RO-RISTS WIN!!"

No, no, no! It's pronounced 'tur-rist'. Like Tourist, but with less vowels.

I'm pretty sure that Russia would summarily kick your arse if you tried to take Khazakhstan, Iran or Norway.

Incidentally, the British Army is patently more disciplined than your own guys, seeing as we have much higher kill:loss rates, and have managed to get 3 of our 4 provences basically handed over to the Iraqis at this point.

No offense, but you also have a higher troop concentration in those provinces, which makes it easier to police them.

As for FAG's original idea, you do realize that the US military isn't actually capable of taking on the entire world, right? At least not without depopulating it. That alone makes your ideas impossible, not to mention the fact that it's cheaper and easier to develop new technology to replace oil than it is to try and control the dwindling oil supply.

My plan for dealing with peak oil:

1. Conservation
2. Tax credits and net metering for alternative fuels and power
3. Tax credits for efficiency investments

A big plus is that it avoids war...no offense, but I'd prefer oil to be phased out peacefully, not by blasting us back to the Stone Age.

My plan for dealing with peak oil:

1. Conservation
2. Tax credits and net metering for alternative fuels and power
3. Tax credits for efficiency investments

A big plus is that it avoids war...no offense, but I'd prefer oil to be phased out peacefully, not by blasting us back to the Stone Age.

But you're missing his salient point: We'd get to kill EVIL MUSLIMS (TM)! And, you know, most of the rest of the world population, but most of them aren't white or Christian, so it's all good!

It's FreedomAndGlory...

you'd think he/she/it/them would actually, you know, know what the words in their handle meant. Or maybe they're being ironic. Yes! It's all performance art! ...But where's the tip jar?

EDIT: It's just a jump to the left...

But you're missing his salient point: We'd get to kill EVIL MUSLIMS (TM)! And, you know, most of the rest of the world population, but most of them aren't white or Christian, so it's all good!

It's FreedomAndGlory...

you'd think he/she/it/them would actually, you know, know what the words in their handle meant. Or maybe they're being ironic. Yes! It's all performance art! ...But where's the tip jar?

EDIT: It's just a jump to the left...

Performance Art: Acting like a complete asshole and expecting people to applaud you for it.

Performance Art: Acting like a complete asshole and expecting people to applaud you for it.

That's the best description of FnG (and the rest of the neo fascists hanging about here) I've heard. :D

Why not go for option one quintillion

Use the two trillion barrels of oil shale reserves in Colorado to tide you over until nano-technology allows for things such as minature solar panels and more powerful batteries.

We may be running out of the easy stuff, but we still got the sands and shale.

Why not go for option one quintillion

Use the two trillion barrels of oil shale reserves in Colorado to tide you over until nano-technology allows for things such as minature solar panels and more powerful batteries.

We may be running out of the easy stuff, but we still got the sands and shale.

Yes, let's strip mine some of the most beautiful scenery on gods green earth, destroy habitat, and make the Front Range uninhabitable due to air pollution. Because we're too damn greedy and pigheaded and shortsighted to go into rehab for our petroleum habit.

Try going up into the Pine National Forest, waaay up at some of their highest campgrounds. Now imagine those incredible valleys and streams and aspen groves clear cut, the amazing night view, where you can actually see the Milky Way with your naked eye, choked with smog. The bear that snuffled around my tent one Tri-Baronial Warlord dead of poisoning or habitat loss. Tell me now that you think this is a good idea. I'll wait.

Who farted in this thread?

Use the two trillion barrels of oil shale reserves in Colorado to tide you over until nano-technology allows for things such as minature solar panels and more powerful batteries.

That's only 20 years, tops...technology is advancing faster and faster, and the gains are becoming more and more dramatic. One of the reasons why I am not worried about Peak Oil is the sheer rate of progress and its continued exponential trend. The economics are keeping pace, too, which means we are able to get these key technologies in the field faster.

(And that's not all nanotech will do...oh God, that's not all it will do. My advice: invest in nanotech, biotech, and IT because you will make a fortune and benefit massively in your personal life to boot.)

You know, for a Freedom and Glory guy you sure don't know a lot about capitalism.

Capitalism is predicated upon the fact that resources can be exchanged via an intermediary currency. For this transaction to be conducted at face value in the present, there needs to be a relative stability between the price of both resources. With oil, this is not the case; the price of oil will steadily notch upwards even as other prices remain constant and inflation is tamed. Thus, if we spend $10 today to acquire $5 dollars' worth of petrol, this "investment" may be wise if the price of petrol trebles in a year. One could also take a different point of view and state that the market value of the goods produced by one barrel of oil should be added to the value of that barrel, assuming that no alternative means of production exists (if you need oil to produce a good, then that oil is that much more precious to you).

...or by allowing the market to adjust to scarcity.

That would be innumerably more expensive and possibly devastating as we lack the ability to adopt a radically different energy infrastructure in a sufficiently short time period without incurring ghastly losses.

Newsflash: If you ever attempt to do this kind of atrocity, the world will stop you, like it stopped Hitler.

Hitler, although he commanded a powerful army, was incapable of producing half the military goods in the entire world. The US, on the other hand, accounts for 45% of global GDP devoted to defense.

You had me going there for a second F&G...after reading the title and and the first paragraph of your post I thought that you would actually propose something plausible and realistic...

...Haven't you learned from the Iraq invasion?

You are proposing invading BOTH Saudi Arabia (With whom the US is an ally) and Iran! on top of that, you want to go knocking on Russia's and China's doorstep by going after Kazakhstan...then, just for fun, Let's invade NORWAY! :rolleyes:

You had me going there for a second F&G...after reading the title and and the first paragraph of your post I thought that you would actually propose something plausible and realistic...

...Haven't you learned from the Iraq invasion?

You are proposing invading BOTH Saudi Arabia (With whom the US is an ally) and Iran! on top of that, you want to go knocking on Russia's and China's doorstep by going after Kazakhstan...then, just for fun, Let's invade NORWAY! :rolleyes:
http://i0005.photobucket.com/albums/0005/icanhascheezburger/2007/7/11/16/128286702153609759ICANHASBOOTY.jpg

Hitler, although he commanded a powerful army, was incapable of producing half the military goods in the entire world. The US, on the other hand, accounts for 45% of global GDP devoted to defense.

Not answering the original point, but, hey, typical. Seize on some irrelevant fact and then yell at people for asking you to answer the questions they asked. So far, true to form. (Though the prose need some purpling - maybe something about heaving bosoms? Though it might be difficult to work the phrase into a discussion of international trade and dictators, I have great faith in your ability to miss the point completely.)

Not answering the original point, but, hey, typical. Seize on some irrelevant fact and then yell at people for asking you to answer the questions they asked. So far, true to form. (Though the prose need some purpling)

Happy?

Not answering the original point, but, hey, typical. Seize on some irrelevant fact and then yell at people for asking you to answer the questions they asked. So far, true to form. (Though the prose need some purpling - maybe something about heaving bosoms? Though it might be difficult to work the phrase into a discussion of international trade and dictators, I have great faith in your ability to miss the point completely.)

If his prose got any more purpler, FAG would be the Bushevik Barney.

Happy?

Well, as I've said before, you're clearly immune to logic based attacks and damage, so I'm working on the theory that mocking the troll might make it go away.

I'm pretty sure that Russia would summarily kick your arse if you tried to take Khazakhstan, Iran or Norway.

No; they have sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure that they will be able to provide ample power for decades to come. Thus, they would have no vested interest in questioning our dominance in the Middle-East. Their ambivalent stance would be supported by the realization that our military is second to none in strength and that they would achieve nothing through an instinctive and reactionary declaration of war.

If his prose got any more purpler, FAG would be the Bushevik Barney.

You win. You win the thread. I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking, I might have choked.

No; they have sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure that they will be able to provide ample power for decades to come. Thus, they would have no vested interest in questioning our dominance in the Middle-East. Their ambivalent stance would be supported by the realization that our military is second to none in strength and that they would achieve nothing through an instinctive and reactionary declaration of war.
Apart from their desire for oil for the same short-term pointless goals as the US in this situation, and the fact that they can simply drive to the middle east instead of spending billions to properly transport an army by air, which is what the US would have to do to stand the beginnings of a chance.

This thread reminds me of this upcoming game...

Frontlines: Fuel of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontlines:_Fuel_of_War)...

Apart from their desire for oil for the same short-term pointless goals as the US in this situation

As I previously stated, their thirst for cheap energy has already been quenched by their refreshing reserves of natural gas; they need not resign themselves to direly searching for an oasis of the precious liquid in the desert.

and the fact that they can simply drive to the middle east instead of spending billions to properly transport an army by air, which is what the US would have to do to stand the beginnings of a chance.

First of all, given our unchallenged naval supremacy, we would transport our troops via sea; your suggestion of conveying them by air underlines your military artlessness. Furthermore, we can not only amass a better-trained, better-armed, and better-disciplined army, but also one that decisively outnumbers them that is backed up by the unparalleled prowess of our air force. They would suffer grievous losses and have very little to gain from such an engagement; no, they would benefit more by abstaining from setting the machinery of war into motion.

With out reading the OP, I am guessing he says that we need to take over middle eastern nations, by force, for the oil, and probably destroy Russia, for its oil, and I am think he wants us to take out the olives, vegetables, and babies, for their oil too :p

No; they have sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure that they will be able to provide ample power for decades to come. Thus, they would have no vested interest in questioning our dominance in the Middle-East. Their ambivalent stance would be supported by the realization that our military is second to none in strength and that they would achieve nothing through an instinctive and reactionary declaration of war.

Have you looked at our military recently? It is stretched to the breaking point. We can't even upkeep our equipment in Iraq, how do you propose we do it for the entire middle east? How do you propose we find the manpower to fight these wars?

Have you looked at our military recently? It is stretched to the breaking point. We can't even upkeep our equipment in Iraq, how do you propose we do it for the entire middle east? How do you propose we find the manpower to fight these wars?

Hmm. Arm illegal mexicans and send them over there as the "shield unit", followed by a layer of african americans, then poor white boys, then finally, the rest of the the us military. :p

I really can't believe some of you, in vain, continue to engage FAG as if he were a real person and these were his real beliefs and he was here for real debate or discussion.

He isn't, they aren't, and he isn't. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Ummm... Hello? This is why the mocking! And maybe the fire and acid arrows, if the troll won't leave peacefully.

EDIT: And a step to the riiight...

...how do you propose we do it for the entire middle east? How do you propose we find the manpower to fight these wars?

Conscription will undoubtedly become a necessity as the scope of the conflict widens. However, we would primarily rely upon asymmetrical warfare (ie, employing our air force to devastate enemy cities and eliminate the remnants of the civilian population).

I really can't believe some of you, in vain, continue to engage FAG as if he were a real person and these were his real beliefs and he was here for real debate or discussion.

He isn't, they aren't, and he isn't. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Arm illegal mexicans

Now that you bring it up, an excellent recruitment technique would be to guarantee citizenship to those who are willing to prove their unwavering loyalty to the US.

With out reading the OP, I am guessing he says that we need to take over middle eastern nations, by force, for the oil, and probably destroy Russia, for its oil, and I am think he wants us to take out the olives, vegetables, and babies, for their oil too :p

Duuuude... You're like... telepathic and stuff!

Now that you bring it up, an excellent recruitment technique would be to guarantee citizenship to those who are willing to prove their unwavering loyalty to the US.

We already do. Witness the citizenship ceremonies in Iraq and Afghanistan on the Fourth. You know, you act like you're all knowing about the military, how could this little factoid have escaped your eagle eye?

As I previously stated, their thirst for cheap energy has already been quenched by their refreshing reserves of natural gas; they need not resign themselves to direly searching for an oasis of the precious liquid in the desert.
Try running a car on natural gas. Watch as it fails to work properly.
First of all, given our unchallenged naval supremacy, we would transport our troops via sea; your suggestion of conveying them by air underlines your military artlessness.
Because it's not like those countries would be buying, or indeed be being given anti-shipping missiles to combat this very threat, now, is it?
Furthermore, we can not only amass a better-trained, better-armed, and better-disciplined army, but also one that decisively outnumbers them that is backed up by the unparalleled prowess of our air force.
An average fighter-bomber goes about a gallon to the mile. Keep in mind that this is a war being fought for the last of the world's resources.
They would suffer grievous losses and have very little to gain from such an engagement; no, they would benefit more by abstaining from setting the machinery of war into motion.
Well so would any US forces. If they were using any kind of large-scale air cover, you might as well not have really bothered to turn up.

Now that you bring it up, an excellent recruitment technique would be to guarantee citizenship to those who are willing to prove their unwavering loyalty to the US.


I was being sarcastic, as that is probably the worst idea ever. I mean, why should they have to serve to be a citizen, when all we have to do is be born here? Not exactly fair right..
Even though mexicans could be good navy seals, i mean they crossed a river to get here..Okay, that was a bad racist joke from Ned...erm Carlos Mencia.


Duuuude... You're like... telepathic and stuff!

Yes, and you want bacon right now, don't you? Don't lie, I can read your mind! :D

I really can't believe some of you, in vain, continue to engage FAG as if he were a real person and these were his real beliefs and he was here for real debate or discussion.

He isn't, they aren't, and he isn't. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Just goes to show optimism and romanticism isn't dead.

FnG, if you'd adjust your figures for inflation, you'd find that gas prices are actually lower than they were from those "good 'ol days."

I'll have to do some sleuthing on Car and Driver to find the article (from 2 years ago) but I'll link it when I find it.

Just goes to show optimism and romanticism isn't dead.

I'm a romantic at heart, just ask my wife what her name is so I don't have to steal her wallet to find out again.

Aha! Here it is (it was actually a Motortrend article...):

Linky (http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=The+Asphalt+Jungle+-+Fear+Itself+-+Motor+Trend&expire=&urlID=14825167&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motortrend.com%2Ffeatures%2Feditorial%2F112_0505_taj&partnerID=63977)

Fuel Cells are low cost, easy to produce, and produce no pollution, only water. I can totally see how it's more practical to invade friendly nations and shed blood pointlessly when there's an easy way out... easy ways out are for pussies.

Okay, how many minutes until NY and Washington became a puddle of glass in this scenario? And in this kind of situation, should the US start robbing and raping the whole world for oil, turning into a menace, it WOULD be warranted, and China, Russia and other countries with the technology would be happy to oblige!

Why not go for option one quintillion

Use the two trillion barrels of oil shale reserves in Colorado to tide you over until nano-technology allows for things such as minature solar panels and more powerful batteries.

We may be running out of the easy stuff, but we still got the sands and shale.
FUCK NO! You are not turning my state into fucking Texas!

Besides, we wouldn't be able to afford to do it anyway. We don't have the time to set up for everything and start utilizing it, and, as PsychoticDan will happily explain, it won't help us much anyway.

Fuel Cells are low cost, easy to produce, and produce no pollution, only water. I can totally see how it's more practical to invade friendly nations and shed blood pointlessly when there's an easy way out... easy ways out are for pussies.

And where do you suppose we get the energy for converting atmospheric air into hydrogen fit for a fuel cell??

*sigh (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/Luporum/Goddamnit.jpg)*

I really can't believe some of you, in vain, continue to engage FAG as if he were a real person and these were his real beliefs and he was here for real debate or discussion.

He isn't, they aren't, and he isn't. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

But hey, the more you sweat in practice... ;)

No; they have sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure that they will be able to provide ample power for decades to come.

To bad you aren't really like how you act on this forum or else I would say you have absolutely no understanding of geopolitics. Russia wants to keep the status quo. They do not want to allow the U.S to have supremacy in raw materials over most other countries.

They would heavily push to keep their borders and buffer states (relatively) intact.

China is trying to shift away from oil and if the U.S started to turn belligerant they would have an even better capacity to support and fight of any aggression. They can also stuff the U.S.A's economy up as well, which would screw with your military funding.

Thus, they would have no vested interest in questioning our dominance in the Middle-East.

They have a lot of interest. There is upcoming trade routes and military allies. In this case the stronger those states are the stronger Russia/China/E.U is.

Their ambivalent stance would be supported by the realization that our military is second to none in strength and that they would achieve nothing through an instinctive and reactionary declaration of war.

Second to none in strength? Like the main battle tanks that have no active factories to construct any more and have only one major refit/repair facility? Like the GPS network than can be shot down by both China and Russia, both of whom would use the capabilities if they had to? Like the flagging recruitment and lessened ability to help heal the wounded to allow them to fight again?

Though a lot of the reason why the U.S.A has a powerful military is due to the large amount of networking in the military and support from other countries. If all other countries that house resupply areas for the U.S.A, hold communications systems stopped supporting the U.S.A then the U.S.A would be severely hampered.

An aircraft carrier group does not have the same capability or capacity compared to a mainland air base (though it does represent a large tactical advantage and a moderate strategic advantage).

The U.S heavily relies on air superiority/supremacy. After WW2 they have never had to deal with anything that comes close to an equal opponent. Most of their tactics relies on having either air superiority or the opponent not having the same level of communications as they would (if other states do not allow U.S communications through or if the satellites are bombarded with missiles then even that advantage is gone).

Hmm. Arm illegal mexicans and send them over there as the "shield unit", followed by a layer of african americans, then poor white boys, then finally, the rest of the the us military. :p

"Operation Human Shield My Ass!"

About the one funny thing he said before the alien brainwashing kicked in.

Well the 'pebble bed' nuclear reactor is alright at doing it (the high temperature can increase the efficiency of electrolysis.

True. I've also seen (it'll take awhile to do this, but...) geothermal ones.

I've just seen too many people talk about this kind of energy with the misconception that it's totally clean; it's not, however, because the majority of the power produced in the US comes from gas/coal power plants.

Nuclear power, however, should be atop that list. But because of Three Mile Island, it isn't, and that's a pity.

And where do you suppose we get the energy for converting atmospheric air into hydrogen fit for a fuel cell??

Well the 'pebble bed' nuclear reactor is alright at doing it (the high temperature can increase the efficiency of electrolysis.

Freedom aren't you forgetting about the largest oil field in the entire world at something like 1600 billion+, and it's believed it's much much bigger, Orinoco basically sits on top of of giant Bitumen field. I imagine theres going to be alot of demand for that oil (needs alot of refining) once peak oil approaches.

I imagine theres going to be alot of demand for that oil (needs alot of refining) once peak oil approaches.
That's going to suck for so many reasons.
However, it would probably take something like ten to twenty years before the field would be producing its full potential.
By the time those fields are in use, I think only the Chinese will be buying.

FUCK NO! You are not turning my state into fucking Texas!

Besides, we wouldn't be able to afford to do it anyway. We don't have the time to set up for everything and start utilizing it, and, as PsychoticDan will happily explain, it won't help us much anyway.

First of all, aside from any hatred of the Republican Party, what is wrong with Texas? I don't see anything wrong with it.

In terms of affordability, the costs of producing oil from oil shale are plunging by the day; as I said before, that should be enough to tide us over until nano-technology starts having a serious impact on energy usage.

Yes, let's strip mine some of the most beautiful scenery on gods green earth, destroy habitat, and make the Front Range uninhabitable due to air pollution. Because we're too damn greedy and pigheaded and shortsighted to go into rehab for our petroleum habit.

Try going up into the Pine National Forest, waaay up at some of their highest campgrounds. Now imagine those incredible valleys and streams and aspen groves clear cut, the amazing night view, where you can actually see the Milky Way with your naked eye, choked with smog. The bear that snuffled around my tent one Tri-Baronial Warlord dead of poisoning or habitat loss. Tell me now that you think this is a good idea. I'll wait.

First of all, going into rehab for the petroleum habit will do very little. Sure, it would help if Americans used public transport for commuting and so on, however, you are still going to need oil until further technological advances come along for transporting goods and people over long distances. Are you seriously going to think that Union Pacific will suddenly electrify their lines (at a loss by the way), just to help cut America's petroleum habit? Of course not.

Secondly, you seem to think that I am advocating the complete exploitation of the oil shale resource. I merely said that it would tide us over until nano-technology and similar advances take over - Vetalia suggested twenty years; I would suggest fifty years to be conservative. Even if the entire world's oil was supplied from Colorado in that fifty year period, only a third of the supply (640 billion barrels) would be needed. That would mean that a great deal of the Pine National Forest and so on would be preserved.

Anyways, how do you propose fixing America's petroleum habit without causing major economic damage to any nation, baring oil producing nations?

our most potent tool for avoiding a dismal future is NOT military billigerance, but well reasoned, common sense, self dicipline!

we don't need to have a dismal future when oil and other nonrenewables diminish to no longer economically viable levels, for two major important reasons.

first and formost being that we don't need to be dependent on them now!

not only do we not need to be dependent on them, but it is precisely by remaining so, among other adamant backwardheadednessess of socially popular familiar assumptions, that we are creating that dismallness.

wind, solar, micro-hydro, and other noncombustive ways of generating electrical power, are quite sufficient to keep us all in refrigerators, personal computers and little people sized trains, and aside from the tools to make such things and keep them going, how much more crap do we need?

of course, under such circumstances it won't be possible to screw each other be economically coercing everyone to indenture themselves for a car, to run on roads which are more or less not there any more because the're no longer maintained, powered by nonrenewable combustables that arn't there either. but i'm sure suitable replacements for that nonsense can always be found if we're really that determined to keep making ourselves gratuitously miserable.

our most potent tool for insuring the continuation and excelleration of environmental collapse is the use of military force continue to rip of remaining fuel stocks from resource nations. not only will this continue to accellerate closer the day after 'peek', but also increase signifigantly the likelyhood of famine and incurable disease on a species wide scale.

our collective human ego, that of the dominante culture, is cruizin for a bruzin, as long as it remains emotionally attatched to ways and means that hurt everyone. sure we CAN use billigerance, and having the biggest baddist military means getting away with it for a while, but certain natural realities of the way the universe beyond the fat headed fantasies of being central to it of our human species, just might, have something to say about it.

minor little details like where the air we breathe actually comes from. little things like that.

but leaving the negative side of it aside for the moment, there is a very positive side to be gained by using environmentally friendly tecnologies to live in closer and greater harmony with nature, and WITHOUT having to give up so very much, if any, of our dearly beloved comfort zones we so cannot immagine being other then miserable without.

=^^=
.../\...

First of all, aside from any hatred of the Republican Party, what is wrong with Texas? I don't see anything wrong with it.

I was referring to its desert-like environment as it was raped for all of its oil resources. Sorry, but I will stonewall any attempts to do the same to Colorado, no matter what the reason.

PSYCHOTICDAN:

I have heard some rumors recently about the Alaskan oil fields containing more oil than many Middle East fields due to a new survey of some kind. Any truth to this?

PSYCHOTICDAN:

I have heard some rumors recently about the Alaskan oil fields containing more oil than many Middle East fields due to a new survey of some kind. Any truth to this?

http://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gifhttp://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif
The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission said today that the state's eight oilfields contained an estimated 8 billion barrels of oil on Jan. 1, with 92.5 percent of these reserves in the Prudhoe Bay field. Alaska's 24 natural gas fields were estimated to contain 32.85 billion cubic feet.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDC1538F934A15756C0A967948260

http://www.markswatson.com/Depression12_html_b6d3864.png

Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards. Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.

Total US oil erserves, including those not approved for drilling such as ANWR and the California and Florida coasts, total about 30-35 billion barrels. The US prodcued about 5million barrles/day last year and consumed between 20 and 24 million barells/day for a total of between 6 and 8 billion barells.

It's funny the fantasies some people create when they're scared - and they should be scared.

What about the Arctic reserves? I've also heard a lot about those.

First of all, aside from any hatred of the Republican Party, what is wrong with Texas? I don't see anything wrong with it.

In terms of affordability, the costs of producing oil from oil shale are plunging by the day; as I said before, that should be enough to tide us over until nano-technology starts having a serious impact on energy usage.

No oil from shale has ever been produced in any commercial quantities. The current method under testing hasnt' produced any yet because testing just started a little over two years ago and involves injecting liquid nitrogen into the ground to freeze the ground around a deposit to form a "bowl" of frozen soil. You then sink natural gas power heating rods into the ground for four years to cooke the kerogen into oil and then pump the oil out after wards.

It may be able to be commercially produce oil one day - it hasn't yet - but at very low flow rates. It is extremely unlikely that oil shale will ever produce enough flow to appreciably offset a peak in global conventional oil production.

As our trade deficit widens, our social programs creak under strain, and our budget remains mired in the red, it would be dangerous if not downright reckless to rely on our continued ability to import Middle-Eastern oil. China needs oil to nurture its fantastic growth, as does the rest of the world; we are not the sole purchasers of the resource. The only way to ensure that we will have access to an adequate supply of oil would be to physically control it ourselves.

I know you are trolling, but I'll bite.

1. We have plenty of oil in North America that we haven't even begun to tap.
2. Wars are very, very, very expensive. More than you seem to grasp or are willing to admit to.
3. We should spend less on social programs anyways. The Government's job is defense and infrastructure, and they can't even manage that all the time. Keep their fingers out of being mamma and papa and the economy will benefit.
4. What you are proposing would lead to the end of the civilized world as we know it.

What about the Arctic reserves? I've also heard a lot about those.

I've read estimates of between 25 and 50 billion barrels of arctic and antarctic oil. These reserves are very expensive to exploit, however, for obvious reasons. Maybe after we've melted the poles they'll be cheaper.

4. What you are proposing would lead to the end of the civilized world as we know it.

Dude, we need to end the civilised world in order to save the civilised world. Why aren't you accepting doublethink yet?

I know you are trolling, but I'll bite.

1. We have plenty of oil in North America that we haven't even begun to tap.
No we don't. We have reserves that we haven't tapped - we will though - but they certainly aren't plenty relative to what we use.

I've read estimates of between 25 and 50 billion barrels of arctic and antarctic oil. These reserves are very expensive to exploit, however, for obvious reasons. Maybe after we've melted the poles they'll be cheaper.

50 billion, eh? According to my father--who has unnamed sources and claims to have followed this for quite some time(but then he makes those claims about a lot of different things and is usually wrong)--there are at least 500 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped.

50 billion, eh? According to my father--who has unnamed sources and claims to have followed this for quite some time(but then he makes those claims about a lot of different things and is usually wrong)--there are at least 500 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped.

Your father is funny. In a completely wacko and delusionnal kind of way.

Your father is funny. In a completely wacko and delusionnal kind of way.

He's not always wrong, though, and when he's right, he's right, down to the very last detail. Think of him like Sybil Trelawny from Harry Potter in that sense.

And he's a good guy overall, but just a little too proud of his "sources."

As we stand atop the dizzying, intoxicating heights of current world oil production, our gaze is diverted downwards, for that is where we are destined to plunge: into the misty uncertainties of a world governed by scarcity. As stockpiles inexorably dwindle, we are forced to pose difficult questions and analyze the coming crisis. Should events proceed as predicted, the US economy may be shattered, casting the world into turmoil not seen since the Great Depression. Clearly, it is necessary to conserve not only energy, but maintain our standing in the topsy-turvy realm of geopolitics.

*didn't read it*

Quoted.
No response necessary.

50 billion, eh? According to my father--who has unnamed sources and claims to have followed this for quite some time(but then he makes those claims about a lot of different things and is usually wrong)--there are at least 500 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped.

HOUSTON (Reuters) - There isn't enough oil under the Arctic Circle to replace crude from OPEC, according to a study released on Wednesday by analyst group Wood MacKenzie and seismic research firm Fubro Robertson.

Under the circle, 233 billion barrels of oil equivalent in crude and natural gas have been discovered and 166 billion barrels of oil equivalent are thought to remain undiscovered, said the study's lead author, Andrew Latham, vice president of energy consulting at Wood McKenzie.

Eighty-five percent of discovered reserves and 74 percent of expected reserves is made up of natural gas, Latham said.

"The oil-gas mix is not ideal because remote gas is often harder to transport to markets," Latham told reporters in Houston.

"In addition, export and technology constraints are expected to delay production as a large portion of the communal gas until 2050," he said.

One area where the oil and gas mix is more appealing is Alaska's North Slope, an area oil companies have sought to open to exploration in face of stiff opposition from environmentalists.

The remaining North Slope reserves, estimated between 5 billion and 10 billion barrels of oil equivalent, could be developed at a break-even price between $20 and $30 per barrel, according to the study.

OPEC's 11 member countries hold about two-thirds of the world's oil reserves.

So the mix is about 74% gas in this study which leaves about 26% oil so 233+166 about 500 billion barrels of oil equivalent which includes gas and oil so that means about 130 billion barrels of oil according to this study or about half of what Saudi Arabia claims to have. More than I thought. Your dad's numbers for boe are correct, but boe stands for Barrels of Oil Equivalent. In this case they expect the lion's share to actually be natural gas, not oil. Of what has been discovered 85% is natural gas. The calc I did assumed 75% nat gas.

Still not enough and not exploitable fast enough to prevent Peak Oil. Once exploited, it can help with the backside slope. What's scary about, however, is whether we'll fight over it.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6344

Whaddya know...he was right...about the numbers, anyway.

But I'll have to explain this Barrels of Oil Equivalent stuff to him.

Anyway, as far as he's concerned, he'd be glad if we stopped using any and all oil immediately.

But as for fighting over it...I certainly expect it. We're already seeing the beginnings of it with Russia's deep diving flags.

He's not always wrong, though, and when he's right, he's right, down to the very last detail. Think of him like Sybil Trelawny from Harry Potter in that sense.

And he's a good guy overall, but just a little too proud of his "sources."

Still, the idea that such extensive reserves are sleeping right under your feet and nobody's exploiting them to sell billions of barrel to China and India is quite simply put, ludicrous.

You guys are all aware there's growing concern about companies' and countrie's alleged reserves being artificially inflated to prevent an international crisis and a crash of the oil market, right?

You guys are all aware there's growing concern about companies' and countrie's alleged reserves being artificially inflated to prevent an international crisis and a crash of the oil market, right?

Oh, yeah. very well aware, only it hasn't prevented one, more likely created one.

What about the Arctic reserves? I've also heard a lot about those.

And ruin one of the last pristine environments left on earth? Hell no.

Still, the idea that such extensive reserves are sleeping right under your feet and nobody's exploiting them to sell billions of barrel to China and India is quite simply put, ludicrous.

You guys are all aware there's growing concern about companies' and countrie's alleged reserves being artificially inflated to prevent an international crisis and a crash of the oil market, right?

Yes, and I've tried explaining that to my father, but he won't listen.

Yes, and I've tried explaining that to my father, but he won't listen.

Have you shown him this:

http://www.ncsu.edu/iei/io/oilgraph2.bmp

And asked him why they don't look more like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/US_Proven_Oil_Reserves_1900_to_2005.png

And ruin one of the last pristine environments left on earth? Hell no.

The stronger argument is that the longer those reserves are left there, the more they will be worth.

That pays off ecologically, too. When oil is worth ten times what it is now, more can be spent on protecting the environment while extracting the oil.

Have you shown him this:

*nasty big bitmap*

And asked him why they don't look more like this:

*another pic*

Honestly, you couldn't make your point without huge inline graphs?

Hey, if it comes to that, what the hell was your point anyway?

EDIT: OK, I'll guess. Your point was that the OPEC estimates are bogus, or at least not well founded, since they don't have all the wiggling up and down that the US estimates do. Sure, they look bogus, but the sudden leap in US reserves in ... er, 1970 ... also looks a bit crook.

Reading back through the thread, I find your posts very informative. I'm sorry I quibbled about a big graphic which took a long time to load ... it wasn't really important.

Anyways, how do you propose fixing America's petroleum habit without causing major economic damage to any nation, baring oil producing nations?

I don't know. But we need to do something that isn't ruining yet another beautiful, unspoiled place in the name of progress.

Hmm. Arm illegal mexicans and send them over there as the "shield unit", followed by a layer of african americans, then poor white boys, then finally, the rest of the the us military. :p

Operation "human shield" followed by Operation "get behind the Darkies"?

F.A.G.'s true ID.

http://www.startrekdb.se/karaktarer/ds9_bilder/quark.jpg

34th Rule of Acquisition: War is good for business.

There's nothing wrong with being a Ferengi. What, are you a racist? :(

There's nothing wrong with being a Ferengi. What, are you a racist? :(

Of course I am. I have been ever since those damn Ferengis were calling me Huuemahn.

We must assume complete control of the oil-production apparatuses of various Middle-Eastern nations; this may be accomplished either through sheer military force or tactful diplomacy. The easiest targets would be subjugated first. Listed below are the choice nations and their daily oil production in millions of barrels per day.

Kuwait: 2.418.
UAE: 2.6.
Qatar: 0.828.
Kazakhstan: 1.376.
Yemen: 0.372.

This, along with domestic production, will satisfy above 50% of our oil requirements (which stand at 20 million barrels per day). This show of force will secure us vital reserves and also allow us to bargain with a better hand; should countries enact an embargo against us, the following targets could be summarily invaded.

Saudi Arabia: 9.35.
Iran: 4.09.
Norway: 2.45.

Added together, this yields around 30.5 million barrels per day -- enough to last us for some time to come, ensure our continuing dominance in the world, and thus prevent despair from impregnating the world with its icy grip.

Hmmmm you want to invade these countries and steal their oil huh? And the reason that the US is in Iraq (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12887450&postcount=54):

No, their noble duty to rebuild a country from its squalor and to ensure that Iraq remains a haven for democracy, freedom, and goodwill in the future. Their just crusade to restore Iraq to its former glory and bring about a cessation to the sectarian hostilities which embitter the country and cause so much gruesome bloodshed.
Go away FAG.....MTAE your trollish ways bother me!! :p

Freedom you're great entertainment on a Sunday afternoon.

Of course I am. I have been ever since those damn Ferengis were calling me Huuemahn.

Would you yell at the dogs for barking? Would you... would you slap the children for laughin'?

It's FreedomAndGlory...
More like FreedumbAndGory :p

Would you yell at the dogs for barking? Would you... would you slap the children for laughin'?

No, but then again, neither a dog or a child has ever stolen latinum from me.

Hmmmm you want to invade these countries and steal their oil huh? And the reason that the US is in Iraq (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12887450&postcount=54):


Yeah, but this is different.

50 billion, eh? According to my father--who has unnamed sources and claims to have followed this for quite some time(but then he makes those claims about a lot of different things and is usually wrong)--there are at least 500 billion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped.

Reminds me of a story that I have heard. Back in the 1980s, some oil explorers were looking in the Great South Basin (south of New Zealand) and they literally found barrels of the stuff bubbling out. However, the exploration company was in a dispute with the New Zealand Government and instructed the sailors not to reveal anything.

Honestly, you couldn't make your point without huge inline graphs?

Hey, if it comes to that, what the hell was your point anyway?

EDIT: OK, I'll guess. Your point was that the OPEC estimates are bogus, or at least not well founded, since they don't have all the wiggling up and down that the US estimates do. Sure, they look bogus, but the sudden leap in US reserves in ... er, 1970 ... also looks a bit crook.

Reading back through the thread, I find your posts very informative. I'm sorry I quibbled about a big graphic which took a long time to load ... it wasn't really important.

Go to your room and think about what you've done.

FAG makes me laugh. He should do stand up. I quite like this troll.

I really can't believe some of you, in vain, continue to engage FAG as if he were a real person and these were his real beliefs and he was here for real debate or discussion.

He isn't, they aren't, and he isn't. I guaran-fucking-tee it.
He is MeansToAnEnd.

He is RealAmerica.

He is a troll:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12938429&postcount=100

'enuff said!!

FAG makes me laugh. He should do stand up. I quite like this troll.

If it weren't for the forum rules, i suppose i'd show my affection for F.A.G. more often.
:D

If the US actually goes with fags plan, the rest of the world will band together faster then you can say *east coast glass dessert* ;)

Also, invading norway would give a fun conundrum, Norway is a NATO member which means the US would be treaty bound to help defend Norway against their invader :P

If the US actually goes with fags plan, the rest of the world will band together faster then you can say *east coast glass dessert* ;)

Also, invading norway would give a fun conundrum, Norway is a NATO member which means the US would be treaty bound to help defend Norway against their invader :P

The US, of course, will not do as FAG suggests under any circumstances because, even if the rest of the world turned a blind eye it still wouldn't make any economic or military sense.

The US, of course, will not do as FAG suggests under any circumstances because, even if the rest of the world turned a blind eye it still wouldn't make any economic or military sense.

1. No, the US will not do as FAG suggest.
2. Nor will they take any other rational course. No other nation will take a "rational" course.
3. By the time everyone wakes up, it will be too late.

So! Arm yourselves, stockpile food and ammo, and get ready to shoot your neighbors.

Oh, and to get in the mood, watch the Mad Max movies.

1. No, the US will not do as FAG suggest.
2. Nor will they take any other rational course. No other nation will take a "rational" course.
3. By the time everyone wakes up, it will be too late.

So! Arm yourselves, stockpile food and ammo, and get ready to shoot your neighbors.

Oh, and to get in the mood, watch the Mad Max movies.
Well there's a stupid idea.

Meanwhile, I will stock up, but not on arms, food, and ammo, but seeds, farming tools, and so on, as well as the supplies to build what would be necessary.

Well there's a stupid idea.

Meanwhile, I will stock up, but not on arms, food, and ammo, but seeds, farming tools, and so on, as well as the supplies to build what would be necessary.

I have a farm, so the seeds, farming tools, etc., are present.

However, I haven't "farmed" the whole acreage - ever. Just a small part of it (about an acre) as a large garden.

If you don't have the arms, someone will just shoot you and take what you have. Same for trying to go it alone - there's safety in a group with a plan.

Still, the idea that such extensive reserves are sleeping right under your feet and nobody's exploiting them to sell billions of barrel to China and India is quite simply put, ludicrous.

To be fair, with the extraction methods we use now, even if every oil reserve was completely exploited, only 30% to 50% of the oil in those reserves could be extracted. We still have plenty of oil, it's just not economically feasible to extract it.

I have a farm, so the seeds, farming tools, etc., are present.

However, I haven't "farmed" the whole acreage - ever. Just a small part of it (about an acre) as a large garden.

If you don't have the arms, someone will just shoot you and take what you have. Same for trying to go it alone - there's safety in a group with a plan.

Oh, I can defend myself, as can the other members of my family.

But it's stupid to take the attitude of "everyone fends for themselves!" We should work together, not fight over scraps.

To be fair, with the extraction methods we use now, even if every oil reserve was completely exploited, only 30% to 50% of the oil in those reserves could be extracted. We still have plenty of oil, it's just not economically feasible to extract it.

Really. Intriguing. Tell us more.

Oh, I can defend myself, as can the other members of my family.

But it's stupid to take the attitude of "everyone fends for themselves!" We should work together, not fight over scraps.


That seems to be how the world is working right now. Decrying it at this point is like complaining that your leg hurts after you've developed gas gangrene.

Really. Intriguing. Tell us more.

About 20% of oil can be recovered from pressure forcing the oil to the surface. After that, fluids (such as water, or for some reason natural gas) are injected into the well to force up another 5% to 15% of the oil. After that, the remaining oil is too viscous to rise to the surface, and has to be liquified through heating (usually with steam), allowing another 5% to 15% to be extracted. All and all this is nowhere near 100% of the oil.
Another problem is the price of extraction constantly rises as the reserve is depleted, and so the price (and ecological impact) of steam or water injection may not be worth the price of the oil.

I did a science project about it. :D

Edit: By the way, peak oil doesn't necessarily mean that the reserves have run out, it just means that oil production has levelled off, because increased production is too expensive or inconvenient. It's more economic that it is ecological.

That seems to be how the world is working right now. Decrying it at this point is like complaining that your leg hurts after you've developed gas gangrene.

Really? I could have sworn humanity was perfectly capable of living--for the most part--in harmony in cities and nations. Forgive me if this was a mistake.

Really? I could have sworn humanity was perfectly capable of living--for the most part--in harmony in cities and nations. Forgive me if this was a mistake.

Nope. When the oil runs out, you'll see the true nature of humanity.

About 20% of oil can be recovered from pressure forcing the oil to the surface. After that, fluids (such as water, or for some reason natural gas) are injected into the well to force up another 5% to 15% of the oil. After that, the remaining oil is too viscous to rise to the surface, and has to be liquified through heating (usually with steam), allowing another 5% to 15% to be extracted. All and all this is nowhere near 100% of the oil.
Another problem is the price of extraction constantly rises as the reserve is depleted, and so the price (and ecological impact) of steam or water injection may not be worth the price of the oil.

I did a science project about it. :D
Ah. Thanks for the info. It's quite interesting.

Remote Observer: I have a little more faith in humanity than you do it seems, but given you being you, that's not surprising.

Nope. When the oil runs out, you'll see the true nature of humanity.

David Suzuki's new TV show? :p

1. No, the US will not do as FAG suggest.
2. Nor will they take any other rational course. No other nation will take a "rational" course.
3. By the time everyone wakes up, it will be too late.

So! Arm yourselves, stockpile food and ammo, and get ready to shoot your neighbors.

Oh, and to get in the mood, watch the Mad Max movies.

Imma get together with my neighbors, we all know each other pretty well. We'll figure something out. There's a lot of complementary talent. We've got a bunch of farms within a mile. We've got electricians, engineers, framers, even a guy that makes custom furniture down the street. We've got ground water - I'm the only one with a background in geology that I know of here, though I haven't gotten my degree yet. I've been thinking I should go to the library here and look for surveyor's records. If we're all cool we can probably build something worth living for in the case that we have a complete breakdown. In the case that our state and federal system stay relatively intact, our community will be stronger for having worked at it. In the worst case scenario I'll see you all in Hell.

Imma get together with my neighbors, we all know each other pretty well. We'll figure something out. There's a lot of complementary talent. We've got a bunch of farms within a mile. We've got electricians, engineers, framers, even a guy that makes custom furniture down the street. We've got ground water - I'm the only one with a background in geology that I know of here, though I haven't gotten my degree yet. I've been thinking I should go to the library here and look for surveyor's records. If we're all cool we can probably build something worth living for in the case that we have a complete breakdown. In the case that our state and federal system stay relatively intact, our community will be stronger for having worked at it. In the worst case scenario I'll see you all in Hell.

Just don't wander out into the Wasteland. I may end up as the Humongous.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/MadmaxII5q.jpg/235px-MadmaxII5q.jpg

About 20% of oil can be recovered from pressure forcing the oil to the surface. After that, fluids (such as water, or for some reason natural gas) are injected into the well to force up another 5% to 15% of the oil. After that, the remaining oil is too viscous to rise to the surface, and has to be liquified through heating (usually with steam), allowing another 5% to 15% to be extracted. All and all this is nowhere near 100% of the oil.
Another problem is the price of extraction constantly rises as the reserve is depleted, and so the price (and ecological impact) of steam or water injection may not be worth the price of the oil.

I did a science project about it. :D

Edit: By the way, peak oil doesn't necessarily mean that the reserves have run out, it just means that oil production has levelled off, because increased production is too expensive or inconvenient. It's more economic that it is ecological.

It should also be noted that these techniques, collectively known as EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery), have never reversed a decline in oil from a field but can lengthen decline so as to provide for a smoother, less steep backside depletion rate. If used before decline, as has been happening for the last couple decades, the greatly increase backside decline. Nitrgen injection before Peak at Cantarrel is probably responsible for it's very steep, 14% year over year decline.

The irony in this business is that the better you are at doing this the more you acceperate the depletion on the backside slope.

No; they have sufficient natural gas reserves to ensure that they will be able to provide ample power for decades to come. Thus, they would have no vested interest in questioning our dominance in the Middle-East. Their ambivalent stance would be supported by the realization that our military is second to none in strength and that they would achieve nothing through an instinctive and reactionary declaration of war.

Umm, this is Russia you're talking about. You know, nuclear superpower and all that?

If Russia react by declaring war, kiss our sorry asses goodbye.

Imma get together with my neighbors, we all know each other pretty well. We'll figure something out. There's a lot of complementary talent. We've got a bunch of farms within a mile. We've got electricians, engineers, framers, even a guy that makes custom furniture down the street. We've got ground water - I'm the only one with a background in geology that I know of here, though I haven't gotten my degree yet. I've been thinking I should go to the library here and look for surveyor's records. If we're all cool we can probably build something worth living for in the case that we have a complete breakdown. In the case that our state and federal system stay relatively intact, our community will be stronger for having worked at it. In the worst case scenario I'll see you all in Hell.
Damn. I don't think I have even one small portion of that. Pity.

Good luck, Dan.

It should also be noted that these techniques, collectively known as EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery), have never reversed a decline in oil from a field but can lengthen decline so as to provide for a smoother, less steep backside depletion rate. If used before decline, as has been happening for the last couple decades, the greatly increase backside decline. Nitrgen injection before Peak at Cantarrel is probably responsible for it's very steep, 14% year over year decline.

The irony in this business is that the better you are at doing this the more you acceperate the depletion on the backside slope.

Wait a second...can you explain the terms you're using here, and perhaps how oil is drilled from these fields? "Acceperate the depletion" doesn't exactly make much sense to me.

Wait a second...can you explain the terms you're using here, and perhaps how oil is drilled from these fields? "Acceperate the depletion" doesn't exactly make much sense to me.

I think that it means if EOR is used before oil recovery, the decline in the production rate is very sharp (the oil runs out fast), but if used after primary (pressure-only) extraction, the decline in production is prolonged.

Correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

Damn. I don't think I have even one small portion of that. Pity.

Good luck, Dan.



Wait a second...can you explain the terms you're using here, and perhaps how oil is drilled from these fields? "Acceperate the depletion" doesn't exactly make much sense to me.

hahahahahahahaha!

that's just me typing faster than my fingers can move.


Accelerate the depletion. Basically, if you suck the oil out faster on the up side of the slope you'll make the peak higher but the backside steeper. If you use these techniques after peak they can help make the backside slope less steep. The point, EOR should be used after peak to extend the life of a field. It should not be used, as it often is, to suck as much as possible as fast as possible particularily while a field's production is still climbing.

hahahahahahahaha!

that's just me typing faster than my fingers can move.


Accelerate the depletion. Basically, if you suck the oil out faster on the up side of the slope you'll make the peak higher but the backside steeper. If you use these techniques after peak they can help make the backside slope less steep. The point, EOR should be used after peak to extend the life of a field. It should not be used, as it often is, to suck as much as possible as fast as possible particularily while a field's production is still climbing.

Oh. Whoopsie.

So basically this process is actually forcing Peak Oil to arrive sooner than it might have? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here, which seems to be that implementing this process the way it has been is actually reducing the total amount of oil that can be gathered from a field?

Oh. Whoopsie.

So basically this process is actually forcing Peak Oil to arrive sooner than it might have? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here, which seems to be that implementing this process the way it has been is actually reducing the total amount of oil that can be gathered from a field?

Basically. What's happening is they're sucking as much oil out as humanely possible, so they get a big ass production rate. Then the oil starts to run out, and their production rate acts like a rollercoaster, i.e. the further up you go, the bigger the eventual fall.

Oh. Whoopsie.

So basically this process is actually forcing Peak Oil to arrive sooner than it might have? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here, which seems to be that implementing this process the way it has been is actually reducing the total amount of oil that can be gathered from a field?

Well, in the agrrgate there's so much noise in the system that it would be hard to blame EOR for arriving at Peak sooner rather than later. In an individual field it can delay peak and make the peak higher, but if you do that then the backside slope will be much steeper. Without using EOR techniques on the way up in a well maintained field you may see depletion rates of 2-8%, I'm just throwing these numbers out there because all fields are different, while in a field that had EOR techniques applied from teh get go in order to wring as much out as fast as possible, like Cantarrel, you may see depletion rates on the back side of 14% or higher year over year. A candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, so to speak. Also, rapid production can damage a feild by forcing ground water above the oil. Oil in a field never touched "floats" on water. The oil, which is lighter, has risen to the top and the lightest oil, the best oil used to make gasoline, has risen to the top of the oil layer. The best way to produce oil from a field is to maintain production from teh top at the same rate that you fill water in from the bottom to maintain the integrity of the oil layer. If you push or pull to hard thewater can get sucked up past the oil and leave that oil "stranded" so EOR applied carelessly, as probably happens in many of the state owned oil fields, can damage the ultimate recovery - or how much oil thefield will produce before it is wrung dry.

So that's a yes, then. I doubt it's a major contributor, but it certainly isn't helping.

Speaking of Peak Oil...any recent news on that front that you'd care to share?

Quote of the Week

"Supply is going no place, and demand is rising 2.5% to 3% a year.”
— Economist Philip Verleger Jr. of Aspen, Colo.


Statistic of the Week

“US natural gas production is declining despite a large increase in the number of producing wells . The US natural gas peak was at 22 Tcf/a in 1973 with about 100,000 wells; 2005 production was at 19 Tcf/a with 400,000 wells.”
— Jean LaHerrere, ASPO-France



1. Crude and gasoline

It was another volatile week as oil prices first fell with the stock market and then spiked to a new intra-day high in New York of $78.77 a barrel after US crude stocks fell by 6.3 million barrels --- ten times what analysts were expecting. After the report was digested, oil prices fell on profit-taking, increased gasoline stocks, and concerns about the US economy.

Gasoline, diesel and heating-oil stockpiles climbed in the week ended July 27 as refiners raised operating rates to 93.6 percent of capacity, the highest in 13 months. With US refineries doing well, concerns of gasoline shortages during the remainder of the summer driving season have subsided to be replaced by worries about the worldwide crude supply in the face of increasing demand. While the US commercial crude stockpile is still well above normal, it has been decreasing for the past month. If US refineries continue to process 16+ million b/d and US imports continue to average around 10.2 million b/d as they have in recent weeks, the US crude inventories would continue to decline by 5 million barrels per week.

The stock market fell on Friday after a report showing weaker-than-expected job growth was followed by reports of slowing service-sector growth and further turmoil in the mortgage market. Then oil fell on concerns that the US could be approaching a recession. The balance between tightening oil supplies and fears of an economic downturn probably will be the predominant force affecting oil prices for the rest of the summer.



2. The OPEC Meeting

The OPEC meeting scheduled for September 11th in Vienna could turn out to be a watershed event. Last fall OPEC cut production by about 1 million b/d in order to counter falling oil prices. Since the cuts, however, world demand has continued to grow by what may be a million b/d. An even higher price increase occasioned by OPEC production cuts has been avoided by greatly reduced oil consumption in poor countries and the drawdown in oil stockpiles outside the US.

Lately, there have been numerous reports speculating about what OPEC will decide about production levels at the September meeting. The “official” OPEC position still seems to be that the “market is well supplied” and that there is no obvious need for a production increase. Recently, however, the IEA and US Secretary Bodman have asked OPEC to increase production immediately in order to avert shortages in the near future. Bodman went so far as the say that $80 oil would threaten the US economy.

Thus far responses from OPEC officials have been all over the board. The most conciliatory remarks came from the organization’s Secretary General who said OPEC would be “uncomfortable” if oil prices went above $80 a barrel. Other oil ministers, especially from countries that have little hope of raising production in the near term, have reiterated that high prices stem from refining and geopolitical problems and that they are dead set against a significant production increase in September

At the September meeting, the issue of a production increase likely will depend on Saudi Arabia, as it is the only OPEC country that might be capable of significantly increasing output. Last week the Saudis announced that they expect to add half-a-million b/d to their maximum production capacity of 10.8 million bpd by year’s end. If this is the true level at which the Saudis are able to produce marketable grades of oil for an extended period, then they may be able to increase production. Many observers are skeptical. Saudi willingness to increase production is a complicated question bound up with Iraq, Iran, arms sales, and a myriad of other factors.


3. In the Congress

On Saturday, the US House of Representatives passed legislation to increase the use of renewable energy and promote conservation at the expense of the oil and gas industry. The new bills include a provision that would require that 15 percent of electricity from private utilities come from renewable energy sources. Republicans called it a "no-energy bill" because it lacks new drilling incentives, and they derided the emphasis on renewables as "green pork." The White House and the electricity industry are strongly opposed to the Renewable Electricity Standard, saying that it would raise electricity prices and put unequal burdens on states.

A companion bill would repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects. Republicans and oil-state Democrats criticized provisions in the tax portion of the House bill that would repeal reduced tax rates for major integrated oil companies, and drop foreign income tax deductions for companies that produce oil and natural gas overseas.

The House did not to allow a vote on an amendment requiring cars and light trucks to achieve a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2019. The measure, similar to one the Senate passed in June, drew fierce opposition from automakers, the United Automobile Workers and, crucially, John D. Dingell. As chairman of the Energy Committee, Dingell says he wants to deal with fuel standards in global warming legislation later this year.

The House and Senate bills now go to a conference committee which will attempt to reconcile the differences. After reconciliation, the bills have to get through a possible Presidential veto. ``This isn't even close to being over,'' said Tom Kuhn, president of the lobbying group for the utilities. Given the current balance of forces in Washington, it seems likely that nothing will really be settled until after the 2008 elections, unless much higher energy costs intervene first.


4. African Power Crisis

The twin scourge of drought and $75 oil is causing unprecedented hardships all over Africa. This year at least 25 of the 44 sub-Saharan countries are facing serious electricity shortages.

Some nations, like Ghana, have tried to deal with their power crises by leasing gas generators, producing emergency power at exorbitant rates until new power plants can be built. In Nigeria, Angola and some other nations, virtually all businesses and many residents run private generators to supplement public service, adding to costs and increasing pollution. Daily electricity output in Nigeria has dropped 60 percent from its peak, and blackouts cost the economy $1 billion a year.

In Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and parts of West Africa, drought has shrunk rivers and cut the generating capacity of hydroelectric dams. Drought in Ghana has crippled gold and aluminum production and set off blackouts in Togo and Benin, which buy power from Ghana.

Zambia’s plan, like those of most other nations, is to build its way out of the power crunch. It plans $1.2 billion in generating upgrades and new capacity, financed mostly by China and India. South Africa plans more than $20 billion in upgrades; Congo is contemplating a hydroelectric station that by itself would increase capacity outside South Africa by 50 to 75 percent. The best answer, most experts agree, would be for nations to cooperate on large regional power plants that could supply power more cheaply and efficiently than dozens of smaller ones. In the meantime, the situation is likely to get worse.


4. Energy Briefs

Germany's 500-year-old tradition of hard-coal mining is dying out. With domestic coal long unprofitable because of cheap imports from Africa and Asia, the German government this year decided to gradually withdraw expensive subsidies that have kept its mines open for nearly a half-century.

The world's three largest fully publicly traded oil firms are investing billions of dollars more this year but the extra spending has yet to result in higher production. Exxon, the only one to raise output last year, had a 1 percent second-quarter fall in production to 4.12 million boepd and BP's supply fell by 5 percent to 3.8 million boepd.

Shell expects production to average "near the low end" of its target of 3.3 - 3.5 million boepd during 2007 because of problems in Nigeria and the reduction of its majority stake in the Sakhalin 2 project in Russia.

Saudi Aramco is expected to invite companies in August to help develop Manifa oilfield, with a potential production of 900,000 barrels of oil a day. The estimated $10bn Manifa development program aims to add 900,000 barrels a day of heavy crude to Aramco's production by mid-2011.

China has declared a moratorium on the construction of most ethanol plants. Chinese officials recognized that producing corn-based ethanol was dangerously driving up food prices. Unless the fuel can be produced with sorghum, batata, cassava and other "non-staple crops," it won't be produced in China at all.

Venezuela managed to keep stable the number of oil rigs operating last year, but total new wells drilled fell and the company relied more on old ones to keep up production. While operating oil rigs increased by one to 76 rigs last year, the number of newly drilled wells fell 10.6% to 1,145 nationwide.

In Mexico, El Universal newspaper reports that experts of PFC Energy (Washington, D.C.) pointed out that investments for PEMEX exploration are running out of time. Even if heavy investments were made now, new oil fields would take from six to eight years to be ready. Consequently, Mexico may have to import oil to satisfy the internal market.

Beijing will delay the startup of a $1.2 billion refinery in east China by at least nine months, adding uncertainties to a joint-venture and oil supply deal with Saudi Arabia. The deal for Saudi Aramco to take a 25 percent stake in the project, and supply 80 percent of the crude supply for the plant, is not complete.

Russia planted its national flag on the seabed more than 4km beneath the North Pole on Thursday, staking a symbolic claim to a vast swathe of Arctic territory believed to be rich in oil and minerals. A group of Russian explorers and scientists in mini-submarines became the first men to land on the sea bed of the North Pole.

Gazprom said it received a ``significant part'' of a $460 million debt owed by Belarus, averting a supply cut to the country. Belarus had asked Venezuela to help pay back the debt. In the first half of the year, Belarus paid for only for 55 percent of its gas supplies according to Gazprom. At the same time, Gazprom said it paid Belarus about $30 million a month for gas transit to Europe.

The Iraqi parliament has gone into summer recess without passing the oil law that Washington was pressing it to adopt. Passage of the law was billed as a "benchmark" in the battle to get Congress not to set a timetable for US troop withdrawals.

Venezuelan refineries do not appear to be keeping up with rapidly increasing domestic demand for gasoline and other refined products. While Venezuela plans to build three oil refineries from scratch, so far the projects have not started.

TXU's power generation business, Luminant, is teaming up with Shell's wind business to build a new 3,000 megawatt wind turbine project in the Texas Panhandle. The size of the project alone is noteworthy because it's almost equal to the 3,352 megawatts of wind capacity the state currently has.

Demand for ethanol climbed to 427,000 bpd in May 2007, an increase of 22% over May 2006. As of 30 July 2007 there were 124 ethanol plants in operation in the US, with a combined production capacity of approximately 423,000 barrels per day. Since 2001, the amount of corn used to produce bio-ethanol in the US has risen 300%. In fact, in 2006 US corn crops for biofuel equaled the tonnage of corn used for export. In 2007 it is estimated it will exceed the corn for export by a hefty amount.

So that's a yes, then. I doubt it's a major contributor, but it certainly isn't helping.

Speaking of Peak Oil...any recent news on that front that you'd care to share?

Well, it's not a yes because done right, after peak, it can be used to extend the life of a field just as it has in the East Texas oil field. It has caused havoc when done wrong, however.

David Suzuki's new TV show? :p

lolz...no non-Canadians are gonna get that...

Well, it's not a yes because done right, after peak, it can be used to extend the life of a field just as it has in the East Texas oil field. It has caused havoc when done wrong, however.

Well, yes...it's incorrect application that I am referring to here, hence my use of "not a major contributor."

*snip

And in other news, Greenpeace has opened an office in Edmonton, with their main goal being to oppose the continued extraction of oil sands. It is likely that they will receive no support from the locals; mainly as the oil boom has improved their lifestyle. We have heard stories that teenage baby sitters can earn thousands of dollars a month.

The boom is expected to continue, with a recent report by Morgan Stanley has indicated that Athabasca field should be producing four million barrels of oil daily in the next fifteen years. While this may seem small, once oil shale from Colorado is considered, as well as other alternate oil sources, things become more stable.

1970s: OH NO WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF OIL JUST IN TIME FOR GLOBAL COOLING AND THE NEXT ICE AGE

2000's: OH NO WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL AND IT'S ALSO CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING


errr...we haven't got a clue...

lolz...no non-Canadians are gonna get that...

Their loss. ;)

1970s: OH NO WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF OIL JUST IN TIME FOR GLOBAL COOLING AND THE NEXT ICE AGE

2000's: OH NO WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF OIL AND IT'S ALSO CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING


errr...we haven't got a clue...
Correction: you have not a clue. You might want to educate yourself rather than just dismissing it completely out of hand.

Correction: you have not a clue. You might want to educate yourself rather than just dismissing it completely out of hand.

People forget that the last time the boy cried wolf the wolf really came...

People forget that the last time the boy cried wolf the wolf really came...

And no one paid any mind to the wolf.

But wasn't it the boy who was eaten in that tale, and not the people?

And no one paid any mind to the wolf.

But wasn't it the boy who was eaten in that tale, and not the people?

Okay, so the analogy breaks down there...

Also, people keep saying that people thought we were going to run out of oil in the 70's. That's not what the controversy was. People were saying that oil production was going to peak in the US in the 70s...

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/us-prod-discovery-shift-2nd-degree.gif

Okay, so the analogy breaks down there...

Also, people keep saying that people thought we were going to run out of oil in the 70's. That's not what the controversy was. People were saying that oil production was going to peak in the US in the 70s...

That's the thing though...few people understood that, and fewer remembered. All they remember is controversy about oil and it being harder to find.

They don't understand what Peak Oil means and they don't want to understand it. Case in point: most of the places I try to explain it at, people immediately start mocking me for running around shouting about how all the oil was going to disappear. Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

People did think though that oil was going to run out by the year 2000 during the 1970s and 1980s though. They also thought that we would have electric flying cars; double-decker jumbos flying on hydrogen and passenger planes going at Mach 6.

While I don't think that oil production is going to increase at the dizzying rates of the 1950s and 1960s, I do think that it will still continue to increase, especially as oil sands and oil shale come on board.

While I don't think that oil production is going to increase at the dizzying rates of the 1950s and 1960s, I do think that it will still continue to increase, especially as oil sands and oil shale come on board.

I doubt it. The world needs 3 million bpd of new production each year just to replace declining fields; that means we need at least 4.5 million or so each year to keep up with demand. That's a new Ghawar every year.

I think there is still some room for growth, but I seriously doubt we will be capable of more than 95 million bpd or so of capacity (that includes NGLs as well as crude and assumes that projects scheduled to come online do and are developed properly). We'll probably plateau around 2010 and then begin a descent; although oil shales and tar sands will help slow decline rates, they won't stop it from happening.

With two trillion barrels of oil that can be recovered from Colorado alone, I don't know, I still think that there is hope.