Please Read very scary....

[movonne]

Outlook 2005

Current Situation & 2005 Projections
by Dale Allen Pfeiffer

Read this free story and other articles here:
FromTheWilderness.com

Sorry I do not know how to get the FromtheWilderness.com to come up to go directly in...

[mattclearing]

1. link?

[GetTheRightVote]

2. looking for a link ??

:kick:

[InvisibleBallots]

3. here

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/122904_current_situation.shtml

[movonne]

4. Thank you

[mattclearing]

5. This is kind of ridiculous.

Predictions like this are kind of silly. I follow everything right up until he says the population will crash out due to loss of oil power.

There are so many other ways to harness and use energy. Oil isn't the end of electricity/power.

[nonews]

6. Saudi Arabia

they just doubled their oil reserves--enough for another 200 years!

[NuttyFluffers]

7. ??? When? Where? Links?

truth,sarcasm, or talking out of your ass?

Gawar is well past due and there has been no open report of a new mega site. Where is this information you are getting?

[nonews]

10. from the Wash Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28101-2004Dec26.html

come on, I am not trying to start something; with the price going up so much this year, Shale and 'sand-trapped' oil become economical

[charlie]

13. There's no there there

"There are big chances to increase the kingdom's produceable oil reserves by 200 billion barrels," Ali Naimi said in a statement issued after he inaugurated new oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia. "This will come either through new discoveries or through increasing production from known deposits."

Big chances. New discoveries. There's nothing concrete in that statement at all. Just rosy scenario spinning.

[nonews]

15. right price

for the right price, there is plenty of 'there' there!

[charlie]

19. No price can conjure oil from nothing

Read the quote. It's speculative, not definitive.

[NuttyFluffers]

36. exactly, is it 200 years or 200 bil barrels?

speculation, speculation, speculation. where's the proof, where's the huge report of a new mega well site?

he says one thing (saudi arabia has expanded their production to last another 200 years) and then shows us this, speculation. i call bullshit. quit the feeding of lies and pony up.

[Solon]

8. Actually they doubled it back in the '80s

At just about the same time that OPEC changed rules that tied the amount of exports allowed to the amount of proved reserves, coincidence, I think not. Plus there have been no MAJOR discoveries since the '60s. As a side note, at around the same time, nearly all OPEC nations changed increased their reserves anywhere from 50 to 100 percent. I would say they are a little too optimistic, don't you think?

[NuttyFluffers]

9. that's what i was thinking.

:eyes:

lived there, still have a marginal interest what happens there, haven't seen anything as glowingly rosy as this in at least 20 years.

i'd like a news article link myself, wouldn't you? ... but considering his handle...

[nonews]

11. Canandian Reserves

http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

[Minstrel Boy]

12. The Alberta tar sands is not cheap oil.

A great deal of energy is expended in its recovery. And that's what Peak Oil is about in the short term: the end of cheap oil.

Even from your link:

"the quality of those reserves differs substantially from the Saudi reserves in terms of cost and ability to bring...the productive capacity on in a meaningful way"

[nonews]

14. $40/bbl

at this price, there is plenty of oil around. It was only $10/bbl a couple of years ago, hardly worht the expense of getting the tar and shale oil out. The real problem is lack of refineries in the US

[Solon]

18. The problem comes when energy to get the oil is more than the...

energy you get out of it. That is part of the reason why even after peak many reserves, including this one, will become more expensive a lot quicker. It is not only harder to get out of the ground, it is of much lesser quality, for example, has too much sulfur, than the "sweet" oil of the past. That means longer time to market, as well as more expensive at refineing. It may simply be more economical to leave it alone and invest what little energy we have left to non-hydrocarbon based alternatives.

[Minstrel Boy]

21. And it's going higher still. As you say, it was only $10/bbl

a couple of years ago.

Understand what I mean about the end of cheap oil?

Unless wages keep pace, a lot of Americans will be riding bicycles and planting vegetable gardens.

[nonews]

22. no need to ride bikes yet...

due to better technology, we have been able to absorb the higher costs---for now

[BiggJawn]

42. No space for Veggies, already got the bike.

Mad Max, here we come!

[brokensymmetry]

23. Sure. Don't worry, be happy!

Oil will surely go down. Right?

And the reason that no refineries have been built is...well...why? Could it be that the oil companies know a little something they're not advertising?

We also have a government of, by, and for the oil industry. They went into Iraq...because they want to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. Right?

Did you know that Hummer sales are down? I'll bet you could make a great deal if you bought one. Why not check with your local dealership? No need to thank me! I'm just trying to be helpful! :evilgrin:

[nonews]

25. Hummer sales

Hummer sales are down because they are a "crappy" car

[Solon]

27. Probably also because to fill it requires a 50 dollar investment..

in many areas, that would definately suck. Hell I get upset at the 20 dollars every 2 weeks I put in my little 4 banger with a stick.

[TO Kid]

28. Tarsands oil is cheap enough

Friend of mine worked for Suncor about ten years ago, at the time the break-even point for their oilsands project was $13/bbl. The extraction process is also done with an energy profit; it takes the energy equivalent of 1 barrel to produce three barrels of synthetic crude.

[Minstrel Boy]

32. Kid, are you ever wrong.

From Richard Heinberg's The Party's Over:

The extraction process involves using hot-water flotation to remove a thin coating of oil from grains of sand, then adding naphtha - a petroleum distillate - to the resulting tar-like material in order to upgrade it to a synthetic crude that can be pumped. Currently, two tons of sand must be mined in order to yield one barrel of oil. As will oil shale, the net-energy figures for oil sands are discouraging: Youngquist notes that "it takes the equivalent of two out of each three barrels of oil recovered to pay for all the energy and other costs involved in getting the oil from the oil sands."

To replace the global usage of conventional crude - 70 million barrels a day - would require about 350 additional plants the size of the existing Syncrude plant. Together, they would generate a waste pond half the size of Lake Ontario. But since oil sands yield less than half the net energy of conventional oil, the world would need more than 700 plants to supply its needs, and a pond almost as big as Lake Ontario. Realistically, while oil sands represent a potential energy asset for Canada, it would be foolish to assume that they can make up for the inevitable decline in the global production of conventional oil.

[charlie]

17. Extracting from tar sands and shale

is more akin to mining than drilling. The materials must be blasted and moved before processing. It's energy and labor intensive. And creates waste that must be moved to storage. Plus it uses a shitload of water, another limited resource. It's highly unlikely to ever provide enough oil to offset dwindling reserves.

[nonews]

20. gotta go..

good discussion, need to go change the bit on the derrick

[eyepaddle]

39. So you were posting here

when you are on tour? Boy I'll bet the toolspusher'd be pissed to find that out. Just out of curiosity--were you guys planning this bit trip? How are you guys yo-yoing that pipe, are you old schooling it with the chains, using tongs or do you have an iron roughneck?

Ah yes, I hated every minute I was in the oilfield, but in a bizarre way I sometimes miss it.

Do you know what I'm saying.....

[Forkboy]

41. So far he claims to have been homeless

worked on an aircraft carrier and now an oil derrick.

[Forkboy]

46. retraction

another poster worked on an aircraft carrier.

My apologies.

[NuttyFluffers]

37. oh, saudi arabia is the canadian reserves now... hmm. i see.

it keeps making more sense the more you spin. up is down, left is right, the world makes perfect sense when i stand on my head.

quit showing me the tar sands of canada and show me this magical, major boon in saudi arabia that expands production for another additional 200 years. you'd think something that serious would hit the news in a big way, *somewhere* at least!

[Javaman]

47. And there hasn't been a new refinery built in the US in 30 years...

[Royal Observer]

31. I heard that they announced that their oil reserves

increased by 77%. What gives?

[Peak_Oil]

29. It's not ridiculous. Frightening, but not ridiculous.

Oil does a lot more than produce electricity. So does natural gas.

Get ahold of a quiet hour and watch http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram

and then come back here and say it's not a problem.

[mattclearing]

33. I'll watch this, but I am in the Manufactured Political Control camp.

There are tons of viable alternatives that we aren't taking proper advantage of due to poor leadership.

Al Gore knows science will provide the cure for oil crazies, if only scientists are allowed to do so.

[Peak_Oil]

35. Thank you for saying you'll watch.

I very much appreciate a mind open to exploring the possibility that oil will peak, and following that, we have a mess to clean up.

Here's one more to look at, it'll take ten seconds rather than an hour. It makes a good compliment to that video. It's two ways of looking at the Dow. Here's the way you're used to seeing it

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=my

Now, here's the way it looks when you change from logarithmic scale to arithmetic scale.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=my&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

There's a reason you usually see the first one and not the second one. Geometric growth looks pretty scary when it stops.

[mattclearing]

40. Having watched it, I have to say I'm not impressed.

Hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power, all need to be implemented and explored more thoroughly, and people need to keep experimenting. There is energy in everything. Fossil fuels are simply the easiest way to get energy. Don't be fooled by snake oil salesmen like this guy.

Doomsday predictions from people who say that oil is our only hope for power are extremely premature. Don't believe the hype.

[rman]

43. the problem is in the transition from oil to alternative energy sources

oil is the main source of energy used by the industrialized world now.
alternatives are *possible* but right now implemented only on a small scale.

it's gong to take time and energy to make the transition to other sources of energy.

how much time is it going to take, how much time do we have?
how much energy is it going to take, how much energy do we still have?

it looks like we've only got a few years untill oil production will no longer be able to keep up with (still growing) demand.

just wait a few years and you'll be impressed.

[mattclearing]

45. Hence why the Bushies are making a power grab.

But this is short-sighted. Like I said, this is a power game, institutionalized by people who use it to maintain power.

That is the main reason that science is the enemy of the Republican Party. Science provides means to people outside of their hierarchy. Republicans rely on ignorance to dominate other people. You are playing into their hands by believing that oil is the end all be all of society.

When the oil runs out and chaos fails to ensue, I will hate to say I told you so.

[rman]

48. if chaos fails to ensue, you can feel free to rub it in till eternity

i am not saying that oil is the end all be all of society.

on the contrary. i did say:

"oil is the main source of energy used by the industrialized world now.
alternatives are *possible* but right now implemented only on a small scale."

i'm saying there likely will be problems because we can't get alternatives on line fast enough, on a large enough scale.

how does that equate to "oil is the end all be all of society"?
however, the end of the oil age will put an end to the incredibly wastefull way of living we have now.

Here's a nice quote by a Dutch economist at the recent Peak Oil conference in Paris: "It may not be profitable to slow the effects of decline". (source: Mike Ruppert, www.fromthewilderness.com)

[mattclearing]

49. I can see that it is not profitable to slow the effects of decline.

It is stupid to rush along towards it, though. The power elite of the world who favor oil are jumping us all out of a plane without a parachute.

I think it is likely different, though.

They are basically maximizing their profit by selling something that they have already developed improvements on, and waiting till the last possible second to introduce a new alternative to the market.

When the time comes, and I don't think it will be as soon as the guy in the article above predicts, I think that people will deal with less services for awhile until energy alternatives come online.

There are plenty of perfectly reasonable doomsday scenarios. Oil is not very convincing. Now if you want to talk about the collapsing dollar or another terrorist attack turning the U.S. to overt fascism (as opposed to the creeping kind we have now), then you'd have a believer.

[rman]

50. Of course it isn't profitable

Unless the well-being of humanity would be counted as profit.
But it's obvious the power elites don't care very much about that.

They aren't even saying there's something wrong with the plane.
I haven't heard my government mention it.
To some that is evidence there's no problem.

The ones sounding the alarm are the dissidents.
The oil industry isn't denying there's a problem on the horizon, although they tend to downplay it.
It is even being covered in the mass media, though marginally (to some that to is evidence there's no real problem).
Either way governments are silent on the issue.

The result is that we are rushing along towards decline; acting as though nothing is up.

People will "deal" with "less services" alright, since not dealing with it isn't really an option.
The question is how well people will deal with it - that is what "the effects of decline" refers to; it might not be profitable to prevent human misery due to the decline of oil supply.

It means there will be decline and that it will have "effects".

[mattclearing]

52. Decline meaning the fall of oil as a primary source of power.

I think that talk of losing huge swaths of the population in order to preserve the oil-based power balance is ridiculous.

You'd have to incite a nuclear/plague holocaust to do it, and while I wouldn't put anything past the people who perpetuate the oil economy, I think it is ridiculous to say that those people will die of lack of oil.

People are amazingly cooperative in crisis situations. The only way that many people will die is if they are killed.

[rman]

54. ok so you agree there will be a crisis

I agree that people will become cooperative. That's not to say the crisis will be without loss of life.

I think it's pretty much a given there will be shortages before we complete the transition to alternative sources. Shortages Will not make things better (not in the short term anyway).

Will the power elite start more wars over the remaining oil? Will people die in those wars? Will the power elites care about that?
(i'm not gonna be like Rumsfeld and answer my own rhetorical questions :)

I wouldn't put it past the neocon types to at least want to lose major parts of the global population. We're talking about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz types, followers of the ideas of Leo Strauss and Machiavelli - don't you agree these people are sociopaths? They'll try anything they think they can get away with.

[librechik]

16. "Deep Hot Biosphere" oil being created as we speak

http://people.cornell.edu/pages/tg21/DHB.html

no real shortage, ever--just manufactured political control. like diamonds.

[Solon]

24. While this may sound pessimistic...

but would it really be worth it to dig down 10 kilometers to get to this potential source of energy? How expensive is that going to be, I mean, if it is a large potential source for oil, what use is it if it costs $100+bbl? This is assuming of course that it is even down that far, I mean I would hate for us to actually invest a lot of time and money, as well as limited energy, in trying to find unproven sources of energy. It might be cheaper just to build geothermic power plants.

[nonews]

26. you are correct

at some point it will be cheaper to build another type of energy supply, but even at let's say $75/bbl, Geothermal cannot compete

[librechik]

34. Maybe--but the Russians have been working on this for decades

and gossip is they are close to making it cost effective--for them.

I'm a greenie type who would like nothing better than for the world to switch to alternative sources to crude. I'm just pointing out a little known option. There is also the turkey guts plant (Carlyle funded) which turns organic waste into light crude.

We need to get busy on many fronts!

[rman]

51. Sure, Carlyle will save the world - that'll be the day.

The topic of abiogenic oil is well known in peak-oil circles, and it has been debunked.

[htuttle]

53. The Russians have been working on ESP for decades, too

Along with a lot of other wild science that seems better fit for the SciFi channel.

Look up 'Lysenko' for some insight into the period of Soviet science the Deep Oil idea came out of. It has a lot in common with what American faith-based science is turning into.

[Peak_Oil]

30. What would a world shortage of diamonds look like?

I don't know if it would be any different from the world I live in right now. What would a world shortage of oil look like? I think it would be remarkably different from what I know.

[NuttyFluffers]

38. Unproven, inconclusive. Read the study...

and they are still studying and debating it. where's the mountain of hard data proving this conclusively and thus guaranteeing oil is a continuous reliable resource?

am i supposed to accept this cutting edge exploration of science as my sole hope in maintaining this civilization for my children and greatgrandchildren? there's real alternatives now that just need a bit more capital and research. but am i supposed to ignore that, sit on my ass, and cross my fingers hoping their speculations will come out golden for us?

please, diamonds is a real monopoly. one company pretty much controls it all and fabricates demand. oil companies have sizable competition -- there's no standard oil monopoly anymore -- and still they have trouble getting all the oil that this civilization needs. and they've often been wrong, hitting nothing; and they've often been desperate trying to maintain power in areas so as to keep reliable areas of oil -- is all this because it's so easy to get because this hypothesis is right and they are all playing an elaborate game? so magically they had this gigantic 'kimberly mine'-like drill into the earth and know oil is endlessly plentiful and has been rationed all this time? really? or are they going to build this in so soon that all our oil issues will go away? sorry, too big of a pill to swallow, i need more conclusive studies and proof.

[rman]

44. that explains why no significant new sources have been found

in the past decades, in spite of ever improving technology.

The abiogenic oil theory you refer to has virtually no support in the oil industry and related sciences - and there is no evidence for it.