We cannot drill our way out of this oil crisis. Since 2000, oil companies working in the U.S. have doubled the number of wells drilled per year.
Although increased drilling has added new oil to the nation's supply, it has not done so fast enough to offset the terminal decline of existing fields.
We are going to have to import more of our oil. Period.
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: PR Drive - Act Now, Here...
At 2pm GMT/3pm BST (one and a half hours from now) the BBC is doing one of its online 'live events' on the price of oil, with the introductory comments:
Quote:
Ask oil expert: What's going to happen to oil prices?
Oil prices have increased by more than a dollar a barrel amid fears of further Middle East unrest. Islamic militants killed 22 people in Saudi Arabia at the weekend, prompting fears of supply disruptions from the world's largest exporter of oil. There is also concern that the cost of petrol at the pumps will rise significantly.
How high could prices go? Why is the market so vulnerable?
Use the form below to send your question for Jan Randolph Chief Economist at the World Markets Research Centre. LIVE interactive forum 1400 GMT / 1500 BST.
Try and get this guy to talk about peak oil. I've submitted my comment already. I strongly encourage everyone else on these boards reading this over the next hour or so to do the same.
We've got to keep bombarding mainstream media about peak oil to make them realise. Already last month I emailed the BBC about factual inacuracies regarding peak oil on some of their web pages, and it works. They actually changed some of what they'd written.
We should, as a group, act to increase awareness. Whenever someone finds out about misinformation or anything else like this, let the boards know so that all of its visitors can send emails/phone/whatever to petition for change/corrections. _________________ Contact me at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/contact/
Read my peak oil dissertation at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/dissertation/
UK citizens sign the petition now: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Oil-Depletion/
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:52 am Post subject: 2nd Calling
Here's another one.
I just sent the following to the National Post:
Quote:
Regarding Terence Corcoran's article "Scary plans to raise and keep oil prices high" of 1st June. Gross inacuracy as follows:
Terence said:
"In fact, it is certain the price will eventually fall back to reflect the realities of supply and demand. The long-term price of oil and all energy is downward, not upward."
Where is this certainty? The fact that a line has been going up in the past is no 'certain' evidence that it will continue to go up forever. In fact, geoscientists suggest that the supply of oil will peak then fall, as it is a finite resource and we live in a round rather than flat world.
At the very very least, this should be correctly to say "In fact, PREVIOUS TRENDS SUGGEST the price will eventually fall back to reflect the realities of supply and demand. The long-term price of oil and all energy is HISTORICALLY downward, not upward."
I would strongly recommend more educated and researched articles in the future.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:59 am Post subject: Re: PR Drive - Act Now, Here...
jake wrote:
We've got to keep bombarding mainstream media about peak oil to make them realise.
And create mass panic in the process, long before a solution or even a transition plan has been developed.
Tis not desirable to have mass awareness yet, if at all. It will just create too many problems and may indeed advance the inevitable chaos artificially (while some of us are still trying to prepare and fulfil our own plans). _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject:
jake wrote:
MrPC: so who's developing this solution or transition plan? The best is for everyone to find out now, or years ago, so that we can wake up to the reality and start to change our lifestyles now before its too late.
Re-read what you just said.
1) There is no transition plan
2) We can't give a serious transition plan to people that we convert
By transition plan, I mean a way to change your lifestyle now that will prevent the crisis or see you through it. The only real way to do that is move to the hills with a group of like minded others and arm yourself to the teeth. That's not a desirable outcome.
Therefore we will be inciting depression, suicides and possible hysteria for those that see little option. Plans to run to the hills, buy some land, and become self sufficient for those with a rural or survivalist bent. Buy more guns, learn how to use them effectively, either in the country or in urban areas for those with a survivalist or militia bent.
And as for those who believe they can prevent the crisis by just switching to the 100% green option on their power bill and buying a $38k hybrid car, they will probably try and come after you later if you leave them with their delusion intact. That $38k could probably have been better spent, even if you blow a few thousand on extra fuel over the remaining life of your existing car. _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 309 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:56 pm Post subject:
Would it not be at least somewhat helpful to get political pressure constantly spewing at the government, from ALL sectors of people, do move on this? And maybe a hybrid car won't help, but a more energy-efficient home that requires less heating/cooling sure would. Or, if you could get the academic community informed, it might stiuulate a flurry of research trying to deal with the problem?
It'd be better then nothing. I'm going to start hitting up a few of my professors by e-mail in a bit, once I've exhausted all the counters I can think of. _________________ "Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
but a more energy-efficient home that requires less heating/cooling sure would.
I´m still not sure why Roxul USA are only promoting Roxul as something to prevent fire in the US, when anyone else in the world buys it because it is one of the best homeinsulation on the market - you can almost cut your heating bill to zero with this stuff (ok, almost, but if have little insulation, then this can save you 30-80% of energy usage to heat your house)
Here is how home insulation is done in house in Denmark.
Attic Insulation : 250-300 MM Rolux (9.75-11.70 inches)
Outer Wall Insulation : 80-130 MM Rolux (3.10-5.07 inches)
Basement Walls Insulation : 190-200 MM Rolux (7.41-7.80 inches)
Basement Ceiling Insulation : 150-200 MM (5.85-7.80 inches)
Pipes Insulation : 20-30 MM (0.78-1.17 inches)
All windows are with energy glass, which is high insulation : 2 layers with argon gas
Most cities have a central heating system, where houses get their heating from. The danish climate can be hot 35C (95F) or cold -20C (-4F)
MrPC: I think you're being overly alarmist about the short term effects of peak oil. Whilst in the long term the results could well be as devastating as you suggest, in the short term there's no reason for the guns, depression and suicide you talk of. Peak oil means the oil is half gone, not fully gone.Importantly, it means oil gets more expensive.
Whilst we're on the plateu of peak production, the price of oil goes up, as it is at the moment, because to keep at that plateau there is a diminishing return on investment. Whilst production can theoretically keep increasing, it only does so because of higher investment costs. Those investment costs have to be passed on to consumers, and hence higher prices. But supply can keep up with demand.
But after that, there comes a stage where two things happen. Firstly, the cost of keeping such high production becomes so high that demand decreases as people simply can't buy the oil any more. Predominately, this will affect the poor within rich nations, and poor nations as a whole. Think the end of industrialisation in less industrialised nations like India and China. Then, at some stage, supply itself begins to fall because no matter how much money is chucked at it, there's only so much oil that can be pumped from each depleting well per day. But by then, there's already some decrease in demand because of my first point. In fact, it may even theoretically be possible not to enter this second step at all, at least until oil is almost run out, if there's enough demand for oil at stupidly high prices, because then we can be really clever as a world and keep on plowing more and more and more money, energy and other resources into oil exploration and extraction! We could have $100 barrels of oil in 20 years time with the same supply as today, perhaps.
The problem with looking at Hubbert's peak and making extrapolated conclusions is that its based upon oil wells when other oil wells exist elsewhere, rather than in isolation as a closed system. So, in the US-48 when production 'peaked' there was no reason why it had to peak then. It just became cheaper to import oil instead. Indeed, with massive investment, perhaps (ask a geophysicist, not me) the US-48 could still be producing at peak levels today, still on a plateu, but the cost of that oil would be ridiculously expensive because it would be so hard to extract. In fact, it may have reached the point where there is a net energy loss from extraction... and at that point, it becomes entirely pointless and production suddently falls to zero.
I pity you for wishing to 'arm yourself to the teeth'. I'd say a likely consequence of peak oil in the long term will be higher crime from the poor who can't afford the oil, and a return to quasi-slavery as the fortunate employ the poor to work their land in return for food and shelter. The word 'work' will become more synonymous with 'energy' rather than '9-5 in office'.
But, returning to the main point I'm trying to make, even though we may be on the peak plateau, I find it highly unlikely that supply will suddenly diminish. But prices will rise tremendously in order to sustain that plateau. This will serve as a wake-up call to lessen our dependence on oil. But its highly likely we won't naturally do enough - maybe we'll buy slightly smaller cars, and computers will get a little more efficient (I'm highly excited about developments in computer power consumption... my laptop draws an average of 13W). Maybe we'll stop consuming so much - and all consumption comes with an oil cost, so that'll be good. But then we'll need to find ways to offset the job losses made there. And this is one place where we should come in, encouraging people to do more 'own work' such as growing their own food and trying to do things as communities.
But we need to make people realise that cheap oil prices will never return, and that there isn't really an alternative. There is no reason to really panic, but there is a reason to change our lifestyles and the basics of our political goals and economics. This will be the hard bit. If people are fooled into believing that the only reason for high oil prices is middle east instability - which they probably view as a short-term sympton - then we're broken. We have to show people why oil prices will never be as low again, why hydrogen isn't an energy source, and why we must all change our lifestyles, our culture, our lives for the long term.
And if you live in the US then please, don't waste your vote on Kerry or Bush. Have you any idea how bloody annoying it is sitting here in the UK wilst Greens like Michael Moore go and say "Hell, vote for Kerry... we need to get Bush out now!". Bull crap. Kerry is just the same. Look at Clinton's record. The only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that at least the Republicans say what they're up to. There has never been a more important time to get a Green elected than now. And there's no reason why it can't be done.
Have a look at my dissertation (link below in sig) to see my analysis of 'the unsustainability of full employment and cheap energy'. There are incredibly important links between employment and energy. At the end of the day, both are simply about 'work'. _________________ Contact me at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/contact/
Read my peak oil dissertation at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/dissertation/
UK citizens sign the petition now: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Oil-Depletion/
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 985 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:48 am Post subject: Rasmus2
Rasmus2,
My home is 67 years old. It did not have insulation in the walls when I purchased it. I have insulated the north wall and will insulate all the others as I am able. I plan to insulate the ceiling better as well.
I can't say how well homes in the US are insulated. Most people try to insult better to save money. I have extra income at this time so I am doing what I am able.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 4:04 am Post subject:
jake wrote:
I think you're being overly alarmist about the short term effects of peak oil. Whilst in the long term the results could well be as devastating as you suggest, in the short term there's no reason for the guns, depression and suicide you talk of. Peak oil means the oil is half gone, not fully gone.Importantly, it means oil gets more expensive.
It's not as simple as you put it. When it looks like supplies are going to start to diminish (tip of the peak), efforts will be made to turn the peak into a plateau. Intense drilling, stepping up the schedule for drilling of known finds etc will try hard to keep supplies steady. There's no question about that.
However, this inevitable action will result in serious price hikes during the plateau to cover the extra costs and a supply strain premium. That will end a few years post peak (maybe a decade if we are very lucky) by a supply collapse, because when we try and plateau supplies, we are eating up too much now at the expense of tomorrow.
jake wrote:
But after that, there comes a stage where two things happen. Firstly, the cost of keeping such high production becomes so high that demand decreases as people simply can't buy the oil any more.
There won't be much of a decrease in comsumption. It will exist, but it's not a magic bullet by any means. Fewer places are accessible by transit, pedestrians and bicycles now than in 1973 or 1980 in much of the western world. We're even more dependent on mechanised agriculture. We're more dependent on our cars. And the vehicle fleet takes 20 years to change substantially through life cycles.
jake wrote:
Predominately, this will affect the poor within rich nations, and poor nations as a whole. Think the end of industrialisation in less industrialised nations like India and China.
Think through what you just said. How many factories could be rebuilt within rich nations to replace output of basic goods (clothes, appliances etc) lost from China?
jake wrote:
Then, at some stage, supply itself begins to fall because no matter how much money is chucked at it, there's only so much oil that can be pumped from each depleting well per day. But by then, there's already some decrease in demand because of my first point.
A point that I can't see as being realistic.
jake wrote:
I pity you for wishing to 'arm yourself to the teeth'.
I resent that implication. Read what I said and say that again, would you? I implied that it was likely but said
mrpc wrote:
The only real way to do that is move to the hills with a group of like minded others and arm yourself to the teeth. That's not a desirable outcome.
Not a desirable outcome != wishing to arm myself to the teeth.
jake wrote:
But, returning to the main point I'm trying to make, even though we may be on the peak plateau, I find it highly unlikely that supply will suddenly diminish.
What's the definition of a plateau? What comes after the flat part?
jake wrote:
This will serve as a wake-up call to lessen our dependence on oil.
In Australia, it was a wake up call for the Government to give a 150% tax credit for oil exploration and drilling in the budget a few weeks ago.
jake wrote:
maybe we'll buy slightly smaller cars
Over the next 20 years, if the car manufacturing industry holds up
jake wrote:
But we need to make people realise that cheap oil prices will never return, and that there isn't really an alternative. There is no reason to really panic, but there is a reason to change our lifestyles and the basics of our political goals and economics.
If you just invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a McMansion in the suburbs, and are tied to loan repayments for much of the next 30 years, with a tight household budget, you have every reason to panic in those circumstances.
jake wrote:
There has never been a more important time to get a Green elected than now. And there's no reason why it can't be done.
Agreed, the Greens deserve a chance, though I have little confidence in them. I live on a council boundary, on the side controlled by a Labor (sic) party dominant council. The council across the road (City of Yarra) just recently lost its first Green mayor, Greg Barber, whose permiership is widely seen as a total failure, even worse than the Labor party, which otherwise runs most councils around this part of town.
He talked and talked about what he supported, but put almost none of the council budget behind the rhetoric. It seems like they felt that being green was more important than actually doing green things.
In 1977, the mayor of Fitzroy (now part of Yarra), Bill Peterson, was dragged away from a blockade of the (then new) Eastern Freeway while wearing his mayoral robe and chain. He wasn't even a Green, and yet he did something far more Green than his first Green successor did 25 years later. _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
However, this inevitable action will result in serious price hikes during the plateau to cover the extra costs and a supply strain premium. That will end a few years post peak (maybe a decade if we are very lucky) by a supply collapse, because when we try and plateau supplies, we are eating up too much now at the expense of tomorrow.
So what are you suggesting exactly? That we let supply fall? That's not an option *you* get to make. I'm telling you what will happen. Yes, its at the expense of a nice curvular bell shaped curve. But hopefully, during the period of high prices whilst still on the plateau, we'll be afforded some time to rethink our economies and our lifestyles for the better. The time for thinking about such things, with as many people as possible invovled - and hence the reason to get it in the mainstream media - is now.
MrPC wrote:
There won't be much of a decrease in comsumption. It will exist, but it's not a magic bullet by any means. Fewer places are accessible by transit, pedestrians and bicycles now than in 1973 or 1980 in much of the western world. We're even more dependent on mechanised agriculture. We're more dependent on our cars. And the vehicle fleet takes 20 years to change substantially through life cycles.
I've been to Cuba, I've seen what can be done when oil supplies are low. Massive drops in consumption can occur, the question is how do we fit those drops into an economy which requires constantly growing consumption? That's the incredibly tricky bit, especially when it comes to politics and elections. Few people will vote for a party who promise a sustainable future but lower GNP, regardless of how it may affect long term quality of life. Few people will currently vote for a party which suggests many of us pick up spades and start growing our own food, safe in the knowledge we won't have enough money to buy all the consumer goods we're so used to. And with technological unemployment occuring in parellel, many people will be out of work.
You're massively concerned about these vehicles. But we don't *need* to travel long distances. Food might, but we have enough oil to fuel the food transport for years, especially if we arrange some kind of rationing system.
MrPC wrote:
Think through what you just said. How many factories could be rebuilt within rich nations to replace output of basic goods (clothes, appliances etc) lost from China?
Have you ever bought clothes in a charity shop? They're perfectly good. How many bags of clothes do you have lying around in the loft? Have you considered using the sink and a scrubbing brush rather than a dishwasher? When I travel I wash my clothes in the sink. Lots of houses have more than one TV, VCR, computer - perhaps they don't need so many if they're short of money, especially if they're eating up preciuos kwh. But yes, we do need to localise production as much as possible. But that doesn't have to occur overnight. We have plenty of stuff lying around to keep us relatively happy for a while.
MrPC wrote:
What's the definition of a plateau? What comes after the flat part?
A fall. But hopefully by then, and with work - YES, WE DO NEED TO DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE NOW - we won't be sent into a spiral of chaos. Rationing of oil or kwh will probably be necessary to help keep things relatively stable.
MrPC wrote:
Over the next 20 years, if the car manufacturing industry holds up
Fortunately, with mass automation, car factories or any other factories these days don't require too much skilled labour. There is now less reason for them to be located abroad where labour is cheaper. But regardless, my bike is pretty damn handy. I have two feet too.
MrPC wrote:
If you just invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a McMansion in the suburbs, and are tied to loan repayments for much of the next 30 years, with a tight household budget, you have every reason to panic in those circumstances.
Too right. This is why I don't advocate home ownership and large borrowing based upon false economic hopes. See my essay on this - http://www.jakeg.co.uk/essays/housing.htm . But then, in way, its their own fault for buying outside their price range. I'm trying to convince my sister not to do this right now. Its very hard when there's me, who she respects, saying something quite different from pretty much everyone else in the world. There will be unfortunate readjustments, and there will be winners and losers. There's little way to avoid that. Any suggestions? _________________ Contact me at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/contact/
Read my peak oil dissertation at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/dissertation/
UK citizens sign the petition now: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Oil-Depletion/
Hmm. You know what we need, is a politician that doesn't give a flying f*ck about weather or not he gets elected. We need one who will simply speak the truth. Think about it, the "Peak Oil" canidate. Can you imagine say Ralph Nader or someone like that decides to talk about how "the oil will run out and we will all die if you keep voting for Democrats and Republicans?" Just go on and on about sustainabiliy. People may not want to hear it but eventually, they might start to get the message if you drill it down thier throats enough.
Politicians just care about getting elected, so thier policies are mild and ultimately not any different than the other guy (yeah, like "gay marriage" and "abortion" are really the issues dividing America), just to get that elusive "swing" vote. We need someone who doesn't care about the swing vote. And maybe then it will cease to exist.
You know, anyone (well, certain criteria) can run for an election. One problem is that the 'good guys' often don't, because they think elections are for politicians and people from political parties.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
