This question is probably best addressed to Mr Bakhtiari or Mr Heinberg. If you have a better suggestion, I welcome it.
One of the aspects of peak oil that interests me the most is how the Middle East will hold up. In the initial phases of peak, higher prices should mean a temporary windfall for oil supplying countries. However, once the first peak related recession sets in (and the concomitant destruction of demand), this poses an extreme problem for those countries that derive a large portion of their income from oil revenue. In particular, for those countries that are past their peak of oil production, they may well be equally past their peak of revenue (and this is to totally ignore per capita revenue).
If surplus capacity appears tight now, one can assume it will only be moreso during the playing out of peak. Just as the world can ill afford the disruption of even small flows of oil now - the market reacts strongly to every little piece of news - we must expect that during a peak plateau, this sensitivity would be even greater. Thus, the world has a great interest in maintaining the stability of all oil producing regions once peak plateau is upon us.
Now considering a proactive program of powerdown, or a worldwide adoption of the Uppsala protocol, this problem remains (i.e. revenue to oil exporting countries declines throughout the powerdown process). There is clearly a sizable risk of large scale supply disruption, and this risk will increase as a powerdown progresses. So the question is this:
Can you imagine any feasible alternative income sources for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., that might supplement their income throughout a powerdown? Do you imagine foreign aid could be used to fill this gap?
How can countries that derive much of their income from oil survive a gradual powerdown? How can the rest of world act to reduce the risk of regime failure in oil exporting regions throughout a proactive (or otherwise) powerdown?
Is the concept of voluntary powerdown and the Uppsala Protocol not then fundamentally flawed?
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 1932 Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject: Started
First Question sent 19-SEP-04 2158 CDT
Will glean other Forae tomorrow and compile them to send 09/20 P.M. _________________ --------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
--------------------------------
(-------< Temet Nosce >-------)
____________________________
Could you clarify your statement on how nothing in the suburbs is within walking distance?
I live in a suburb of Chicago. It's about a 15-20 min drive to the city. I take a train to the city, where I go to school (U of Ill-Chicago), everyday. Illinois has about a dozen commuter train rails that service the what is reffered to as the Chicago Metropolitan Area.
Anyway, just about everything my suburb is within walking distance. This includes my part-time job, three grocery stores and a hospital. However, as I said before, there are commuter trains which service the metropolitan area (two of which stop at a hospital), as well as several non-communter lines which run through surrounding suburbs.
Will states/cities with more rail than others be at any advantage in the initial stages of this collapse?
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 1932 Location: Richland Center, Wisconsin
Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:27 pm Post subject: PowerPoint Presentation
For anyone with PowerPoint or a PowerPoint Viewer, take a look at Richard's Friday Night presentation: http://www.communitysolution.org/ppts/Powerdown.ppt
and jot down any questions or comments you have about it on this thread. _________________ --------------------------------
| Whose reality is this anyway!? |
--------------------------------
(-------< Temet Nosce >-------)
____________________________
the temperatures at depths below about 15,000 feet are high enough (above 275 degrees F) to break hydrocarbon bonds. What remains after these molecular bonds are severed is methane, whose molecule contains only a single carbon atom. For petroleum geologists this is not just a matter of theory, but of repeated and sometimes costly experience: they speak of an oil “window” that exists from roughly 7,500 feet to 15,000 feet, within which temperatures are appropriate for oil formation; look far outside the window, and you will most likely come up with a dry hole or, at best, natural gas only.
However according to Transocean they have successfully drilled oil wells over 30,189 feet below the mudline in over 4000 feet of water. This is twice as far below the limit where you claim hydrocarbon bonds begin to break. How do you explain this?
According to the BBC, the Discovery Channel, and Science Daily, the deepest fossil ever discovered was at a depth of 7382 feet below the sea floor. Why do you continue to maintain petroleum is a fossil fuel? _________________ The Lies Of Richard Heinberg
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Posts: 4353 Location: The Great Sonoran Desert
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: Re: PowerPoint Presentation
EnviroEngr wrote:
For anyone with PowerPoint or a PowerPoint Viewer, take a look at Richard's Friday Night presentation: http://www.communitysolution.org/ppts/Powerdown.ppt
and jot down any questions or comments you have about it on this thread.
The link does not work. _________________ "There must be a bogeyman; there always is, and it cannot be something as esoteric as "resource depletion." You can't go to war with that." Emersonbiggins
"... hope is a rotten-thighed whore" Niko Kazantzakis
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
