Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad
  • Blog

    Past Peak Oil – Why Time Is Now Short

    by Chris Martenson

    Friday, May 27, 2011, 2:49 PM

Note:  With so much going on with Europe's debt crisis, the continuing disaster and economic contraction in Japan, and the potential for a very hard landing in the Chinese growth miracle (which is in the running as my favorite "black swan candidate" for 2011), I am going to return our attention to oil in this report.  The next report will assess the developing and unfolding debt crisis that will drag down most of the developed economies at some point, and this report will provide essential context for understanding why this result is inevitable and when it will occur.

The Next Oil Shock

The only thing that could prevent another oil shock from happening before the end of 2012 would be another major economic contraction.  The emerging oil data continues to tell a tale of ever-tightening supplies that will soon be exceeded by rising global demand.  This time, we will not be able to blame speculators for the steep prices we experience; instead, we will have nothing to blame but geology.

Back in 2009, I wrote a pair of reports in which I calculated that we’d see another price spike in oil by 2010 or 2011, based on some assumptions about global GDP growth rates, rates of decline in existing oil fields, and new projects set to come online.  Given the recent price spike in oil (Brent crude over $126, now at $115) and recent oil supply data, those predictions turned out to be quite solid (for reference, oil was trading in the low $60s at the time). 

One part I whiffed on was in my prediction that the world community would have embraced the idea of Peak Oil by now and begun adjusting accordingly, but that’s not really true except in a few cases (e.g. Sweden).  Perhaps things are being differently and more seriously considered behind closed doors, but out in public the dominant story line concerns reinvigorating consumer demand, not a looming liquid fuel crisis.

How the major economies can continue proceeding with a business-as-usual mindset given the oil data is really quite a mystery to me, but that’s just how things happen to be at the moment.

At any rate, with Brent crude oil having lofted over $100/bbl at the beginning of February and remained above that big, round number for four months now, we are already in the middle of a price shock.  It may not be a perfect repeat of the circumstances of the 2008 oil shock, but it's close enough that the risk of an economic contraction, at least for the weaker economies, is not unthinkable here.  Japan, now in recession and 100% dependent on oil imports, comes to mind.

Looking at the new data and reading even minimally between the lines of recent International Energy Agency (IEA) statements, I am now ready to move my ‘Peak Oil is a statistically unavoidable fact’ event to sometime in 2012, which tightens my prediction from the prior range of 2012-2013.

Upon this recognition, the next shock will drive oil to new heights that are currently unimaginable for most.  First, $200/bbl will be breached, then $300, and then more.  And these are in current dollar terms; any additional dollar weakness will simply be additive to the actual quoted price.  By this I mean that if oil were to trade at $200 but the dollar lost one half of its value along the way, then oil would be priced at $400. 

Stampeding Into a Box Canyon

In 2009, I wrote a special report on oil that explored the interplay between energy and the economy.  At that time, the stock market was in the tank, global growth was in a freefall, and things looked gloomy.

But I knew that thin-air money is not without its charms and that we’d experience a rebound of sorts.  Here’s what I wrote:

I am of the opinion that these trillions and trillions of dollars, which, along with their foreign equivalents, are being applied to “ease the credit crunch,” will eventually find their mark and deliver what feels like a legitimate rebound in activity.  All those trillions have to eventually go somewhere and do something. 

For now, debts are defaulting faster than the various central banks and governments can inject new money and borrowing activity into the system.  Banks aren’t lending because there are very few compelling loans to make, especially if future losses have to actually be carried by the bank making the loan. 

But this won’t be true forever.  Sooner or later, all the trillions of new dollars will trot out of the barn, begin to gallop, and then thunder off, creating the appearance of a healthy advance.

It will be a cruel illusion, though, as this stampeding herd of money is headed straight into a box canyon.

Money is only one component of growth.  As we’ve strenuously proposed, energy is a necessary prerequisite for growth.

(Source)

Well, here we are a couple of years later, with those trillions and trillions out of the barn and stampeding off trying to create some real and lasting economic growth.  As we score these efforts, it appears to us that the amount and type of growth that has been achieved is underwhelming, to say the least. 

Housing remains in a serious slump, wage-based income growth is poor, Europe remains mired in a serious debt crisis, Japan has slumped back into recession, and the US fiscal deficit is a structural nightmare.  Worse, GDP growth is relatively tepid and would be negative, deeply negative, without all the deficit spending and liquidity measures. 

As predicted, all that thin-air money, once released into the wild, had a mind of its own and created a serious bout of commodity inflation, especially in food and fuel, which is now seriously impacting the poor and middle classes. 

So it’s hard to call the trillions and trillions ‘well spent.’  I was hoping for better results.

Yet we can’t call the re-flation efforts a complete failure, as we are not in a serious, destructive deflation, and we’ve all been granted a bit more time to get ourselves prepared in whatever ways make sense. The gift of time has been invaluable, and for that I am grateful.  But in terms of creating a true and lasting economic miracle?  It turns out, once again, that 'printing' money electronically is no more effective than calling in the silver coin of the realm, making each unit slightly smaller, and then re-issuing it.  Real economic growth has not been created.

What has happened is that false demand, spurred on by trillions in thin-air money, has also spurred on renewed demand for oil, hastening the day that a geologically inspired supply/demand mismatch will finally arrive. 

We are driving at a high rate of speed into a box canyon.

World Crude Supply

Before we get into the specifics of where I think the immediate trouble lies in the world oil data, let's take a moment to look at the big picture.

There are a number of ways to look at the petroleum data.  The one I prefer to look at is something called 'crude + condensate' (C+C), which leaves out things like ethanol and natural gas liquids, both of which are converted to 'barrel of oil equivalents' (BOE) and added to the C+C to yield total liquid fuels.  The reason I like to focus on C+C is that this is mainly conventional oil, the cheap and easy stuff, and it gives us a better idea of where we are in the Peak Oil story.

Note:  This next cluster of charts comes from data from the U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) that I am, frankly, uncomfortable with, so take them all with a grain of salt.  The EIA upwardly revised the data for 2010 and added between 750,000 and 800,000 barrels per day of production to each month.  This is the largest upward revision of which I am aware, and it's not yet clear to me why this occurred.  Further, the EIA obtained some of that data from IHS, which is the parent company of CERA, the organization that best qualifies for the 'influential Peak Oil deniers of the decade' award. 

And somewhat ominously, as suspect as the data may be, it has been an important source for decades for analysts, myself among them.  Quite recently, the EIA has announced that, due to budget cutbacks, it will immediately terminate the collection and distribution of international energy statistics — right at the exact moment they are needed most.  Ugh.  Very disappointing, and all due to a $15 million budget cut. (Source). This echoes the loss of the M3 monetary statistic, which turned out to be a perfect gold-buying signal.  If this is a parallel event, it means that now is a great time to take Peak Oil more seriously.

A chart of C+C reveals that the world has been bouncing along in a channel roughly between 72 and 74 mbd since 2005:

Yes, a new high was made in December 2010 and was exceeded in January 2011, offering hope that the world could break out of this limiting band of production, but then production fell back in February due to the Libyan conflict.  I have added a purple dotted line to reflect where the data will most likely be for March after subtracting out the Libyan losses and the Saudi cutbacks.  As you can see, we will be right back in the 72-74 channel.  

Some will be tempted to write this off to a temporary setback due to the unrest in North Africa, but such unrest has always been part of the equation: Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait, and many other countries have experienced supply disruptions along the way due to war and/or civil unrest.

Note also in this chart that oil production fell off by more than 2 mbd as a consequence of the global recession between 2008 and 2009.  From the lows in August 2009, it has since climbed more than 2.4 mbd to its current level.

Where did those gains come from?  Can we expect more? 

There's a very interesting story in here if we dig down one more layer. This next pie chart shows each region's relative contribution to the gains of 2.4 mbd that happened between August 2009 and February 2011: 

In the above chart, I had to include negative percentages for two regions, which is an odd way to display things (how does one draw a negative pie wedge?), but it still all sums to 100%.  I've included the negatives for comparison purposes and because they are important to keep in view.  It's clear that the Middle East is the most important region; no surprise there. North America is about evenly split in gains between the US (Bakken) and Canada (tar sands), and Russia and China are the major players in their respective regions.

Taking the analysis one level deeper, here are the seven major countries that contributed 88% of the August 2009 to February 2011 gains (in thousands of barrels per day): 

Saudi Arabia is the hands-down leader, being responsible for 700,000 barrels per day, or 29%, of the entire gains logged in that period.

There is a variety of interesting sub-stories that could be told across each of the other countries, but it's time to focus on the big fish.

Saudi Arabia – Where There's Smoke, There's Fire

Something is seriously wrong with the signals coming from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and I am of the opinion that KSA is having geological difficulties that are preventing it from pumping more oil.  Said plainly, I am of the mind that the KSA is already at peak.

One troubling bit of information is that Saudi Arabia justified its lowered oil output for March by claiming that the oil markets are oversupplied, even as Brent crude was perched above $120/bbl. There are several possibilities here:

  1. There really is an oil glut, and the KSA is being truthful.
  2. There is an oversupply, but only of the heavier, poorer grades of oil that the KSA has in relative abundance.
  3. The KSA can produce more, but doesn’t want to, preferring to withhold oil production in the interest of receiving higher prices.
  4. The KSA is already past peak and cannot pump more, despite its best efforts, and the oversupply issue is really just a cover story for the fact that the KSA cannot pump more even if it wanted to. 

Let’s start at the beginning of this odd tale.  Early in May, the KSA said this:

Saudi lifts April oil output to 8.5 mln bpd-sources

May 01, 2011

DUBAI/KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia, May 1 (Reuters) – Saudi Arabia's crude oil output edged back up in April to around 8.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from roughly 8.3 million bpd in March as demand picks up, Saudi-based industry sources said on Sunday.

The kingdom slashed output by 800,000 bpd in March, due to oversupply, oil minister Ali al-Naimi said last month, adding that he expected production in April to be a little higher than March's level. 

So the story here is that the KSA claims to have 12.5 mbd of total capacity.  Therefore, meeting the Libyan shortfalls of 1.3 mbd should be simple enough; just open the taps and let it flow.  Yet the KSA barely cracked the 9 mbd mark, briefly, before falling back to 8.3 – 8.5 mbd, telling the world that this was a purposeful response to markets that were oversupplied.  That's one possibility.

Several analysts thought that perhaps the KSA was simply gaming the markets and trying to obtain the best possible prices:

Saudi unlikely to lift oil output quickly

May 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia is unlikely to boost oil production quickly to ease the rise of crude prices, because it needs high prices for its own increased spending, analysts at an international banking think tank said Tuesday. 

After producing 8.6 million barrels a day in 2010, the world's leading oil supplier will only kick up production to about 8.9 million barrels this year, said analysts at the Washington-based Institute of International Finance. 

"So far the production of crude oil in Saudi Arabia for the first quarter was around 8.7, 8.8 (million barrels a day). And recently some unconfirmed reports said that production dropped in March," said Garbis Iradian, the IIF's deputy director for Africa and the Middle East. 

"So we don't expect crude oil production in Saudi Arabia will rise over nine million barrels a day," he said.

While it's possible that the KSA production limitations are a matter of trying to engineer higher prices, one person I trust is Sadad Al-Husseini.  The former Aramco engineer, who has a lot of credibility in these matters, thinks that the production limits have more to do with the grades of available oil rather than any mercenary market tactics on the part of KSA.

Saudi Sweet Oil Supply Too Low to Offset Libya, al-Husseini Says

May 17, 2011

Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest crude exporter, won’t be able to produce enough low-sulfur blends to replace lost Libyan output for refiners in Europe, said Sadad al-Husseini, a former Saudi Aramco executive. 

The country doesn’t have enough Arab Super Light to create sufficient amounts of low-sulfur, or sweet, oil similar to Libya’s grades, al-Husseini, Aramco’s former executive vice president for exploration and development, said today by e-mail.

The basic problem is that each refinery is geared for a specific and relatively narrow band of crude oil feedstocks, with the specific gravity and sulfur content being the most critical factors.  So it is not as simple as the KSA pumping more heavy sour crude to offset the lost Libyan production.  This is yet another possible explanation, and it is far more believable to me than either oversupplied markets or a pricing strategy.

The somewhat shocking news that followed just a few days after the above article was the begging by the IEA for OPEC to lift production.  Such a frank admission or plea has never been made before.  Reading between the lines, we can suspect that a serious supply shortage is looming if more oil does not find its way to market soon.

International Energy Agency Urges Oil Producers to Lift Output

May 19, 2011

PARIS — Expressing “serious concern” about elevated crude prices, the International Energy Agency on Thursday called for an increase in world oil production. It was an unusual move that highlighted consumer countries’ frustration at the failure of oil-producing nations to lift output in the face of rising demand and tighter supply.

(…)

The agency’s monthly Oil Market Report, respected by industry practitioners, has recently been warning about tightening market conditions as supply has not caught up with strong demand.

Despite commitments from Saudi Arabia, the biggest producer, to use its spare capacity to increase output and replace the supplies lost because of the uprising in Libya, the cartel’s production is now running 1.3 million barrels a day below the level seen before the crisis, according to the I.E.A.

Although the New York Times has positioned this unusual call by the IEA as perhaps a bit of political maneuvering, I feel they missed the real picture by not spending more time characterizing the mismatch between supply and demand.  If that's true, then we have a near-perfect repeat of the 2008 situation, where, in the six quarters preceding the oil price spike, demand exceeded supply in five of those quarters.

Confirming this view recently was Goldman Sachs' energy division, which said:

While near-term downside risk remains as the oil market negotiates the slowdown in the pace of world economic growth, we believe that the market will continue to tighten to critical levels by 2012, pushing oil prices substantially higher to restrain demand.

Events in the Middle East and North Africa are having a persistent impact, which leads us to increase our oil price targets. We expect that the ongoing loss of Libyan production and disappointing non-OPEC production will continue to tighten the oil market to critically tight levels in early 2012, with rising industry cost pressures likely to be felt this year.

We are now embedding in our forecasts that Libyan production losses will lead to the effective exhaustion of OPEC spare capacity by early 2012. Consequently, we are raising our Brent crude oil price forecast to $115/bbl, $120/bbl, and $130/bbl on a 3, 6, and 12 month horizon.

(Source)

There’s a lot in there, including the idea that the unrest in the Middle East will be persistent, that non-OPEC production will continue to disappoint (which it should, as nearly every non-OPEC country is past peak), and that the more globally relevant Brent contract is the right one to quote now when discussing oil, not the US-centric WTIC contract.

So count Goldman Sachs among those that are now calculating an imminent supply-demand mismatch.

The End of Easy Oil

The really big news is that the Wall Street Journal finally ran an oil piece (on the front page, no less) acknowledging the difficulties involved in Saudi Arabia regarding oil production and the extraordinary efforts that are now underway to boost production by unlocking their remaining heavy oil reserves. 

The critical parts in this story revolve around the costs of getting this oil out of the ground (in terms of both energy and money), the decades it will take to get the oil out, and the clear implication that going after such oil tells us everything we need to know about where we are in the Peak Oil story in general (and specifically in Saudi Arabia).  All the better, easier, cheaper grades are already drilled and in production.  This is what's left:

Facing Up to End of 'Easy Oil'

WAFRA, Kuwait—The Arabian Peninsula has fueled the global economy with oil for five decades. How long it can continue to do so hinges on projects like one unfolding here in the desert sands along the Saudi Arabia-Kuwait border.

Saudi Arabia became the world's top oil producer by tapping its vast reserves of easy-to-drill, high-quality light oil. But as demand for energy grows and fields of "easy oil" around the world start to dry up, the Saudis are turning to a much tougher source: the billions of barrels of heavy oil trapped beneath the desert.

Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.

That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world's thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.

The whole story is worth a read.  I’ve excerpted quite a bit because there’s so much important information in there that I wanted you to see.  Most importantly, the mainstream media in the US is finally waking up to the idea that all of the cheap and easy oil is gone.

They’ve not yet gotten to the appreciation of the idea of Net Energy, which is the real key to understanding why the future will not resemble the past, but they are edging ever closer. And they are beginning to circle around the idea that depletion in the fields that have driven the world’s economy for the past 50 years is a critical reality.

It’s not much of a hop, skip, and a jump from there to seeing it finally named for what it is:  Peak Oil, otherwise known as the geological reality that will resist all efforts at human ingenuity and technology because it is a matter of finite limits, not of willpower or optimism.

One thing I thought the article did an especially good job of was actually delving into the engineering realities involved in the project.  The article continues:

The Wafra project, however, is far more of a challenge than traditional steam projects. As in most of the Middle East, the oil at Wafra is trapped in a thick layer of limestone that also contains minerals that can build up inside pipes and corrode equipment.

An even bigger challenge is getting the two crucial elements for generating steam: water and a source of energy to boil it. Most successful steam projects are in places with easy access to relatively pure water and a cheap fuel source, usually natural gas. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have little of either.

With no fresh-water sources in the Arabian desert, Chevron has been forced to use salt water found in the same underground reservoirs as the oil. That water is full of contaminants that must be removed before it can be boiled and injected into the ground.

Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.

Some experts are shaking their heads.

The hurdles include mineral buildups, corrosion, water impurities, and the energy costs of heating all that water into steam.  In short, getting this stuff out of the ground is going to be far more difficult and costly than prior efforts.  End of story.

The reality involved in getting at the non-conventional oil is really just a story of declining net energy; the red curtain will extend down into the luscious green space that represents the surplus energy available to society. Less net energy means less economic activity and complexity.  It means less growth.  Below a certain level, it means no growth at all.  And eventually it means persistent negative growth, a possibility not yet priced into any financial markets.

In some cases I have my concerns about whether these heroic efforts are worth the trouble at all.  Perhaps we should invest the same amount of energy, talent, and expertise in energy conservation efforts and technological development.

At this point in the timeline, it's imperative for each of us to ask ourselves: how well prepared are we for this post-Peak Oil future? Part II of this report: How To Position for the Next Oil Shock explores the probable impact the next energy crisis will have on key asset classes, employment, and society in general. As we've shown above, we likely have little time left. Use it wisely.

Click here to access Part II: How To Position for the Next Oil Shock (free executive summary; paid enrollment required to access).

Related content
» More

123 Comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 3:31pm

    #1

    OctoberLandon

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2008

    Posts: 7

    Easy to understand !

    I love the way Chris takes very complex topics like this and makes them understandable for us “common” people!  Thank you Chris!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 5:40pm

    #2
    FireJack

    FireJack

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 08 2009

    Posts: 1

    I think we can all agree at

    I think we can all agree at this point that world governments will continue to do the worst things they could coming into peak oil.

    Trying to force the economy to grow by racking up bigger and bigger debts until it all falls apart is the only future I see right now. The recent majority win by the conservatives is proof of what people are looking for here in Canada. The number one thing on their chart “The economy!” My guess is that it’s going to be a fast collapse as a result.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 7:22pm

    Reply to #2
    JamesRiverMartin

    JamesRiverMartin

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 27 2011

    Posts: 0

    Government/s

    FireJack:  “I think we can all agree at this point that world governments will continue to do the worst things they could coming into peak oil.”This is why I think it urgent to engage the general public, within communities, and encourage a grassroots response to the various crises associated with Peak. We cannot expect government to do it for us.
    Much benefit could come from relocalization of crucial parts of our economies, especially the food part, in advance of what “market forces” will force later.  That is, if there be any advance preparation time at all(!). Really, here in the USA we should have come much further down that road than we have already. 
    I doubt that the debt in our national (USA) and global systems can ever be “serviced,” or that there can be economic growth anytime in the next several decades. This means the basic needs delivery systems will fail unless we create an entirely new kind of financial system, and fast. It’s up to citizens, independent of governments, to implace a viable bridge to a viable future. If governement decides to follow that lead, great. But we cannot risk depending on it.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 7:32pm

    #3
    plato1965

    plato1965

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 18 2009

    Posts: 86

    Solar furnaces perhaps ?

     

     “Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.”

     You’ve got blazing sun anway.. why not use it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 8:01pm

    #4

    SagerXX

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 397

    Bangup report!

    I find these reports more important than ever, as I’m approaching a transitional moment (house sale & move?) and my wife & I have several other irons in the fire — in addition to all the other “normal” prep stuff we have going on.  Reality checks becomes more valuable as we start to make serious choices and moves towards our Next Life.  Thank you!

    Viva — Sager

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 8:37pm

    #5
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    Silver as a PM

    Chris,

    Would you please clarify your comments on silver.  I knew it was used in industry, too,  but I thought you felt more comfortable with it as  PM than you sounded in this article.

    Thanks,

    Ernest

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 10:30pm

    #6

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Appologies.

    It is getting harder to get the oil,

    therefore

    While the drillers ruin their augers, Chris augurs the runes.

    Sorry. Incontinence, you understand.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 10:38pm

    #7

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    Guest Posts

    Thank you again for an excellent report! I noticed it was Guest Posted on ZeroHedge.com. Kudos!

    It’s also about time that the New York Times, a leading flagship of mass media, admitted to the end of “easy oil”.

    By the way, I want to bring to attention to what I consider a complementary Guest Post that I also saw today on ZeroHedge that I think captures well the money and credit flows issue between Asia and the United States. I think it is also a must-read, as it explains a lot, from a different schema.

    Guest Post: The Economic Death Spiral Has Been Triggered
    For nearly 30 years we have had two Global Strategies working in a symbiotic fashion that has created a virtuous economic growth spiral. Unfortunately, the economic underpinnings were flawed and as a consequence, the virtuous cycle has ended.  It is now in the process of reversing and becoming a vicious downward economic spiral. One of the strategies is the Asian Mercantile Strategy.  The other is the US Dollar Reserve Currency Strategy.  These two strategies have worked in harmony because they fed off each other, each reinforcing the other. However, today the realities of debt saturation have brought the virtuous spiral to an end.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-economic-death-spiral-has-been-triggered

    I think these two reports together – the one on Peak Oil, the other on Asia-U.S. trade and currency – are a Category 5 hurricane and and a Category 5 cyclone. Together they’re building up for a huge slam, on top of everything else (demographics, debt, etc.).

    Poet

     

    Chart from above linked report. Click to enlarge chart in a new browser window:

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, May 27, 2011 - 11:31pm

    #8
    jpetr

    jpetr

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 24 2010

    Posts: 3

    Silver

    Chris

    Gold the past 2 weeks is trading more like a currency less affected by seasonal demands as jewelry. I have been super cautious about jumping into more gold right now until today – for reasons mentioned in your “Rout” article and seasonality The first signal of a buy was given on Tuesday and today further technical analysis verified entry. Of course Fed Governor Bullard hinting at more monetary easing did not hurt.  I doubt we will see 1450 or 1400 support taken out.

    If we apply same rationale to silver, its label as 50% industrial will be short lived- esp once gold drags it up. Silver is also regarded as a currency as you know. It’s no secret that states like Utah and many others are looking at allowing gold and silver as alternate currencies

    Granted gold will outperform silver in the short term however, I doubt silver will be pulled down for long like other industrial metals.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 12:59am

    #9

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Latest Fatih Birol interview on NZ Radio

    Latest Fatih Birol interview on NZ Radio

    WE NEED FOUR NEW SAUDI ARABIAS.

    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110525-0922-is_the_age_of_cheap_oil_over-048.mp3

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 1:15am

    #10

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Horse-drawn rubbish carts

    Horse-drawn rubbish carts make a comeback for Suez Environnement

    Horse-drawn rubbish carts are making a comeback – decades after the demise of the rag-and-bone man – in new trials by Suez Environnement, the European waste and recyling company. Suez Environnement, the owner of Sita UK, is trying out the new horse-drawn bin lorries in cities across France – saving petrol money and therefore carbon
    dioxide emissions.

    The company, which collects the bins for 62 UK councils, said initial data from the regions shows that people are recycling 15pc to 17pc more waste than before, as they are reminded of the need to be eco-friendly. “It seems as though the mere presence of horses makes households think and act with more of an environmental conscience,” a spokesman said. The first areas in France to see horses trotting the streets to collect waste are Beauvais three parishes near Troyes, Verdun, Vendargue and Sezanne, where collections started in April and May this year. If the trials are successful, the use of horses could be expanded further across Suez’s operations in suitable locations.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8536374/Horse-drawn-rubbi
    sh-carts-make-a-comeback-for-Suez-Environnement.html

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 1:24am

    #11

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Saudi Arabia at peak??

    Chris wrote:

    Something is seriously wrong with the signals coming from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and I am of the opinion that KSA is having geological difficulties that are preventing it from pumping more oil.  Said plainly, I am of the mind that the KSA is already at peak.

    In fact….  as KSA used to be able to produce 13 mbd five years ago, I can only deduct that they are WELL PAST their peak…

    Furthermore, KSA is in the process of building several oil fired power stations, and we may well be seeing the beginning of the Export Land Model coming to fruition, with KSA keeping its resources for later domestic requirements.

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 1:29am

    #12

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    The Party's Over guys...

    Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.”

    If EVER you needed an example of lower ERoEI…….  this is IT!  This example is a great one of clutching at straws.

    The Party’s Over guys…

    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 10:51am

    #13

    Tom Page

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 26 2008

    Posts: 266

    More Oil Turmoil podcast

     

    Last Tuesday’s program on New Hampshire Public Radio’s The Exchange discussed speculators, political, geological, and economic issues around gas prices, download thru iTunes or here:

    http://www.nhpr.org/more-oil-turmoil

    I sense some growing discussion in the media, but not yet a significant awareness of how significant peak oil could be.  Last time gas prices were over $4/gal I noticed people driving noticeably slower; this time folks seem more accepting of the recent price increases and are still driving their SUVs at 80 mphg on the highway.  We seem to need to feel the real pain of shortages before we really start making the big changes needed.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 2:23pm

    #14

    Wendy S. Delmater

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 13 2009

    Posts: 1418

    use the time wisely

    Thant you Chris. And thanks for the link, Poet. Good article.

    We have been granted a reprive, however short. Use the time wisely. You will be kicking yourself if you do not make every minute count in some small way from now until the midnight hour.

    Meanwhile – Mike: eco-friendly horse-drawn rubbish carts? Wow.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 3:33pm

    Reply to #14
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    Preparations for the Rout and after

    You wanted some comments of what we have done to prepare   I really have let Chris’s advice guide me in my specific situation.  I live in a small city near a much larger one, so tackling security first I have:
    Replaced all flood lights with new motion sensor ones.
    Replaced my entire alarm system covering the house much better.
    Put motion sensors on some interior lights.
    Purchased a pistol and shotgun.  That is something I never thought I would do.
    Well supplied on rechargeable batteries and the new LED flashlights, and I found a great LED lantern by AC Delco which lasts 300 hrs on 3 size D batteries.  I highly suggest it.  You can find them at Home Depot or Amazon.
    I am getting ready to replace all my 45 yr old windows.
    I have a good supply of bulbs of all types, duct tape, and anything else I could see in Home Depot that may come in handy.
    Purchased a good supply of first aid materials.

    As for food:

    I have gotten a pretty deep pantry.  I’ve purchased eight of the six gallon containers of dried beans, etc. from the Ready Store.
    I’ve stocked up on some canned meats and such from Sam’s Club.
    Plenty of coffee..LOL
    Anytime canned fruits, beans or something useful is on sale I buy a load.
    I have a good supply of paper products.
    I purchased a kerosene stove.
    I am keeping a stash of updated seeds, starting pans for them, and a grow light system to start the seeds in.
    I have started composting, planted some fruit trees, and trying my hand at sweet potatoes.  I understand many people survived on them during the depression.

    Monetarily:

    The stocks I have left are mostly domestic or Canadian oil and gas stocks.  Otherwise, I am slowly moving more into PMs.  I’m going to be about 40% PMs.  I’m betting the stock market will not completely collapse or that pure energy stocks will do well.  Mine are leaning towards some of the Canadian oil companies, and gas companies which are concentrating on NG liquids.
    I have done the conversion to PMs slowly because I never thought I would be one to buy them but getting ready to sell another oil stock and buy some more after QE2..
    I have a stash of cash and older coins with the higher silver content.
    I have made one large purchase of the liquor mini-bottles for bartering and am going to add to that.

    For transportation I have purchased a moped and a couple extra gas cans to get around town.  Monday I am replacing the tires on my car.
     
    That’s the majority.  Any suggestions?  I would love for someone to answer whether silver has gotten to be basically a PM or not.  I have leaned towards it figuring it used to be coinage so it will again  or already is.
    The main problem I have had is finding anyone else around here that can understand Peak Oil.  Many people figure it will be Obama who will collapse the Country.
    Best wishes to everyone, and if you have any questions I might help you with please ask.
    Ernest

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 3:53pm

    #15
    David Collum

    David Collum

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 24 2008

    Posts: 21

    Read this analysis over at Zero Hedge...

    It was not obviously labelled so I hadn’t a clue who wrote. I did, however, find myself pondering how much this guy understands the problem. Alas, it’s you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 4:35pm

    #16
    VeganDB12

    VeganDB12

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2008

    Posts: 110

    We are so lucky to have you

    We are so lucky to have you Chris. And I very much appreciate the contributors to the site and everyone working towards preparations. Still, I am so in awe of this sophisticated and detailed analysis.

    I am taking baby steps today:

    1. got 2 kindle books (Mother Jones and “For Dummies” series) on solar heating and started reading the “for dummies” version

    2. looking into local CSA’s for my produce since I cannot have a real garden right now.

    3. preparing to taking public transportation now so I am used to it when gas gets into double digitsFrown

    4. talking to those who will listen to get their ideas on how to prepare (shoulda done this a while ago)

    5. setting up my blackout curtains and small fans to cool my home in case it gets too expensive to run the AC. I am preparing for a very hot and humid summer but who knows….tin foil on my windows is the emergency option for superhot days, it looks crazy but works quite well when the temps are over 100.

    Take care all

    Denise

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 4:58pm

    Reply to #12

    acomfort

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 07 2008

    Posts: 12

    Why Not Solar Hot Water in KSA?

    I’m confused??  Why would they use oil or gas for  heating water?  I would think there is enough sun in KSA to heat all of the water they can find.    . . . acomfort

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 5:22pm

    #17
    String Larson

    String Larson

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 24 2010

    Posts: 5

    Jeff Rubin talk at CIGI Nov 2010

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUD4tvTImxU worth a listen.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 7:26pm

    Reply to #3

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    Solar Steam is being used for oil extraction

    [quote=plato1965]You’ve got blazing sun anway.. why not use it.
    [/quote]
    Chevron is definitely aware of using solar for this type of thing.  I believe the plant in the article below is operational, but I couldn’t find a more recent useful link.
    Brightsource Snags Chevron Deal in Stealthy Move Into Solar Steam
    Disclosure: I’m invested  in Brightsource.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 8:17pm

    Reply to #2
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    Canada

    Are you from Canada?  The reason I ask is because I am planning to migrate to British Columbia next year.  With Canada’s supply of oil sand and BCs push for renewable energy, I figured that it will be a good place to live when peak oil occurs.  Do you think Canada is making the same mistakes that the US is making?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, May 28, 2011 - 8:32pm

    #18
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    Oil Stocks

    Chris,

    What is your outlook for oil stocks?  Is this a good time to hold them, trade them through the oil price shocks, or to sell them because they will get dragged down with the other stocks?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 12:21am

    #19

    Tom Page

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 26 2008

    Posts: 266

    Technology will save us?

     

    How the major economies can continue proceeding with a business-as-usual mindset given the oil data is really quite a mystery to me, but that’s just how things happen to be at the moment.

    Here’s how – The analyst speaking in this May 26, 2011 Blloomberg podcast on oil and gas prices when asked about  Peak Oil simply dismissed it because the PO Theory assumes  that technological will not develop new energy supplies

    http://www.bloomberg.com/podcasts/taking-stock/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 1:06am

    Reply to #14

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    ewilkerson wrote:As for

    [quote=ewilkerson]
    As for food:

    I have gotten a pretty deep pantry.  I’ve purchased eight of the six gallon containers of dried beans, etc. from the Ready Store.
    I’ve stocked up on some canned meats and such from Sam’s Club.
    Plenty of coffee..LOL
    Anytime canned fruits, beans or something useful is on sale I buy a load.
    I have a good supply of paper products.
    I purchased a kerosene stove.
    I am keeping a stash of updated seeds, starting pans for them, and a grow light system to start the seeds in.
    I have started composting, planted some fruit trees, and trying my hand at sweet potatoes.  I understand many people survived on them during the depression.[/quote]

    Hoarding ANYTHING will do you no good at all, eventually.  You WILL run out of food WTSHTF.
    The best place to store food is in the ground…..
    If you can’t get used to that idea, well you will be a casualty.
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 2:12am

    Reply to #2

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Dutch disease

    [quote=phillipsd]Are you from Canada?  The reason I ask is because I am planning to migrate to British Columbia next year.  With Canada’s supply of oil sand and BCs push for renewable energy, I figured that it will be a good place to live when peak oil occurs.  Do you think Canada is making the same mistakes that the US is making?
    [/quote]
    Two words: Dutch disease
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 2:12am

    Reply to #14

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    Sweet Potato Leaves

    [quote=Damnthematrix]I have started composting, planted some fruit trees, and trying my hand at sweet potatoes.  I understand many people survived on them during the depression.
    [/quote]

    Folks may already know that sweet potato leaves are edible and nutritious. They grow prolific and you can cook them and eat them. My mother has a patch of sweet potatoes from which she reglarly harvests leaves, and once in a while will harvest the sweet potatoes, too.
    As for regular potato, the leaves are not edible and in fact can be poisonous. But then again, they are the most calorie-dense starch available to temperate climate, small-scale farmers.
    Poet

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:58am

    #20
    technet

    technet

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 18 2011

    Posts: 7

    love it

    either a price spike in oil causes an economic contraction which brings the price of oil down again, or an economic contraction comes from other causes and brings down the price of oil, either way you will end up with lower oil prices.

    i just love all these articles from self appointed experts quoting themselves and predicting only doom and gloom.

    did you know when they invented the steam engine they worried about running out of firewood ?

    and later there were huge price spikes in coal and worries about coal running out, that was in about 1850, no sign of coal running out yet.

    its all alot of nonsese, you are just acting as a mouth piece for exxon mobile, hype salesman, helping pump their profits before oil is superseeded with something else.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 5:16am

    #21

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    Probably not the Mad Max scenario...

    [quote=Damnthematrix]

    Hoarding ANYTHING will do you no good at all, eventually.  You WILL run out of food WTSHTF.

    The best place to store food is in the ground…..

    If you can’t get used to that idea, well you will be a casualty.

    [/quote]

    I don’t believe this is true. WTSHTF it will be chaos for a while, but eventually we will settle into a new normal.  We will still trade for food – it just may be considerably more expensive, may be a much larger portion of everyone’s budget, and may not be buying it with the currency we currently use. 

    While growing your own food is certainly a good way to prep, just having enough to survive past the initial breakdown and reorganizing puts you far ahead of others. It gives you time to analyse the situation as it unfolds without sweating over how your going to eat which is a considerable advantage.

    If you believe only those growing their own food are the only ones that will survive, I think you better be very very heavily armed since if it gets to that situation you will be fighting off hordes of starving people. I believe the only thing we can all hope for is to be prepared and be flexible.  After all you may have a lovely garden, nice solar panels, and still have to flee due to many reasons (rioting, looting, lawlessness, political persecution, …).

    Also, you did notice that ewilkerson said they were planting a garden, fruit trees, had seeds, etc?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 5:41am

    Reply to #2
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    Canada and Dutch diease

    Samuel,Thanks for your response.  I was not familiar with that term.  I can see the problem now.  
    But is it worse than what we have in the US considering how well Canada weathered the financial crisis.  They had a balanced budget for many years before the crisis, they have been paying down their relatively low national debt, and they have emerged from the crisis with the world’s most stable banking system.
    phillipsd

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 6:09am

    Reply to #20

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    technet wrote:did you know

    [quote=technet]did you know when they invented the steam engine they worried about running out of firewood ?[/quote]Yes…..  and they would have had there not been huge amounts of undiscovered AND superior quality fuels, namely coal gas and oil……
    [quote=technet]and later there were huge price spikes in coal and worries about coal running out, that was in about 1850, no sign of coal running out yet.[/quote]
    Well you’d be wrong……..  have you even done the Crash Course yet?  Not all coal is created equal.  Some, like Anthracite has very high energy content, while brown coal has much lower energy content.  ALL the best stuff is already mined out leaving us….  the dregs.  So we have to mine more and more just to tread water.  The USA has already reached “Peak Coal Energy Content”.  And the world’s coal reserves have been found to be waaaaay overstated, some like the German reserves being OFFICIALLY downgraded 99%!
    [quote=technet]it’s all alot of nonsense, you are just acting as a mouth piece for exxon mobile, hype salesman, helping pump their profits before oil is superseeded with something else.[/quote]
    Before you go spouting your own nonsense about, I’d suggest you educate yourself by first doing the CRASH COURSE…..
    Google “Peak Coal”
    And THEN get back to us with what you now think……..
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 6:15am

    Reply to #21

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    rhare wrote:Damnthematrix

    [quote=rhare]
    [quote=Damnthematrix]
    Hoarding ANYTHING will do you no good at all, eventually.  You WILL run out of food WTSHTF.
    [/quote]
    I don’t believe this is true. WTSHTF it will be chaos for a while, but eventually we will settle into a new normal.  We will still trade for food – it just may be considerably more expensive, may be a much larger portion of everyone’s budget, and may not be buying it with the currency we currently use. [/quote]
    With all due respect…….  you still don’t get it.
    90% (that’s right, NINETY!) of all the calories in your food comes from fossil fuels.  It would only take some oil crisis, like a revolution in Saudi Arabia, or “the big one” hitting California, and you would have a massive oil shortage causing the shelves in supermarkets to be rapidly emptied, with no resupplies……  At any one time, supermarkets only have three days worth of food on the shelves.  EVERYTHING is delivered by truck….  EVERYTHING.
    Good luck……
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 6:59am

    #22

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    Drama queen.....

    [quote=Damnthematrix]

    With all due respect…….  you still don’t get it.

    90% (that’s right, NINETY!) of all the calories in your food comes from fossil fuels.  It would only take some oil crisis, like a revolution in Saudi Arabia, or “the big one” hitting California, and you would have a massive oil shortage causing the shelves in supermarkets to be rapidly emptied, with no resupplies……  At any one time, supermarkets only have three days worth of food on the shelves.  EVERYTHING is delivered by truck….  EVERYTHING.

    [/quote]

    Sorry mike, but I believe you are being overly dramatic, and that takes a lot.  So tell me, even if Saudi Arabia was taken out (12% of world oil production) how does that translate into no food?  People will certainly adapt to a new lower normal and as long as people need to eat, food will be traded.

    Indeed, I believe we will have a SHTF event.  Markets will fail, currencies will fail, and within a few weeks (perhaps months) a new normal will arise with trade for those with food and oil.  You just won’t be buying your next generation ipad over a latte at Starbucks while discussing American Idol.

    I believe your “IF YOU DON’T GROW YOUR OWN FOOD YOU WILL DIE!!!!!!!” message is not accurate and not particularly productive.  Many people can not grow their own food, in fact very very few can grow all they need to survive on their own.  So I believe it is much more prudent to have a good stockpile to survive supply chain disruptions (maybe months) and be able to adapt to a new normal which I doubt any of us knows exactly what that will look like.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 12:07pm

    Reply to #14
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    My Food

    Mike,I must not have been unclear and incomplete.  I have started planting a garden.  I just started this year with only fruit trees and sweet potatoes.  I am keeping a store of seeds, bought a tiller, seed starter equipment, etc.  My “city” is not all that big so I have relatives I can work with as well on their farms.  I, also, anticipate that I am going to be the only one in my neighborhood prepared, so I am going to work on co-oping gardening.  We have pretty good size lots here.
    The way I  look at all this is that mankind is either going to learn to work together and not be so selfish or perish.
    Ernest

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 1:57pm

    Reply to #20

    SagerXX

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 397

    technet wrote:either a

    [quote=technet]
    either a price spike in oil causes an economic contraction which brings the price of oil down again, or an economic contraction comes from other causes and brings down the price of oil, either way you will end up with lower oil prices.
    i just love all these articles from self appointed experts quoting themselves and predicting only doom and gloom.
    did you know when they invented the steam engine they worried about running out of firewood ?
    and later there were huge price spikes in coal and worries about coal running out, that was in about 1850, no sign of coal running out yet.
    its all alot of nonsese, you are just acting as a mouth piece for exxon mobile, hype salesman, helping pump their profits before oil is superseeded with something else.
    [/quote]
    When oil hits $180 a barrel will you come back and share more wisdom with us?  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 2:27pm

    #23
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    Peak Oil a Myth

    Just like the Man-made Global Warming, this peak oil stuff is concocted to force a change in our lives and society. It’s really laughable when you dig only a little.. So many other supposedly scientific “truths” are the same way – modern nutritional “scinece” and modern medicine.  We have a saying at work (not gonna say which science focused agency).. “Science is welfare for smart people.”    I had lunch with a really sharp young engineer and he was telling me about his study and report on the viability of wind and solar as combined replacements for  oil, natuarl gas, coal (combined or individually) .. Even when he stacked the assumptions to  near ridiculous odds in favor of “green” energy, it was still in the single digits in terms of percent of energy provided by these sources – not to mention the incredible costs of wind and solar to acheive that level.  If it were a sound solution, we would be doing it.   Don’t be sheep! Study the subject yourself.Start at first principles. Don’t take my word for it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 3:22pm

    #24

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    ...this peak oil stuff is

    …this peak oil stuff is concocted to force a change in our lives and society.

    And what would that change be and who wants us to change?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 3:32pm

    Reply to #24
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    Johnny, You can't reason

    Johnny, You can’t reason with people like that.  They can be the ones left off the Ark.  All I know is that having a background in business, Economics, and science the first time I heard Matt Simmons speak about it convinced me.  I probably spend an hour or two an evening searching the net to educate myself further.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 3:36pm

    #25

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    Re: ...this peak oil stuff is

    I’m just curious.

    I always wonder what the motivations are to post things like that. No real facts. He just alludes to things someone said.

    I also wonder if he thinks there is an infinite supply of oil or if he has even thought that far ahead.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 3:37pm

    #26
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1369

    Scout

    [quote]I had lunch with a really sharp young engineer and he was telling me about his study and report on the viability of wind and solar as combined replacements for  oil, natuarl gas, coal (combined or individually) .. Even when he stacked the assumptions to  near ridiculous odds in favor of “green” energy, it was still in the single digits in terms of percent of energy provided by these sources – not to mention the incredible costs of wind and solar to acheive that level.[/quote]

    That’s pretty much my understanding of what peak oil theorists believe.  What part of peak oil theory do you disagree with?

    Doug

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:00pm

    Reply to #25

    ckessel

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 12 2008

    Posts: 166

    Johnny Oxygen wrote:I'm

    [quote=Johnny Oxygen]
    I’m just curious.
    I always wonder what the motivations are to post things like that. No real facts. He just alludes to things someone said.
    I also wonder if he thinks there is an infinite supply of oil or if he has even thought that far ahead.
    [/quote]
    Johnny O,
    I think he answered your question when he made the statement:
    “We have a saying at work (not gonna say which science focused agency).”
    Sounds like someone who receives a paycheck from the primary consumer of thin air fiat currency manufacturing, INC.
    Coop

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:16pm

    Reply to #25
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    Johnny,I agree.  It is

    Johnny,
    I agree.  It is baffling.  All those people are, though, is 30 sec. sound bite fools.  They apparently do not want to know more.  Change is difficult, and there are a lot of people who want to live in fantasy land.  Think about the last 30 years.  Anyone could have predicted that if you continued to cut taxes and increase spending we would end up right here.  I know this is a controversial thing to say, but America is getting what it deserves.  We have been narcissistic consumers with borrowed money, so the time has come to pay.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:17pm

    #27

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    I had lunch with a really

    I had lunch with a really sharp young engineer and he was telling me about his study and report on the viability of wind and solar as combined replacements for  oil, natuarl gas, coal (combined or individually) .. Even when he stacked the assumptions to  near ridiculous odds in favor of “green” energy, it was still in the single digits in terms of percent of energy provided by these sources – not to mention the incredible costs of wind and solar to acheive that level.

    I completely agree with the above statement.

    And I would also add that we couldn’t build enough nuclear plants because of the cost not to mention there isn’t enough uranium on the plantet to keep hundreds or thousand of nuclear plants running idefinitely.

    I think one of the biggest take-aways from peak oil is that there isn’t a replacement/s. Our current volume of energy consumption is going to end which means a complete re-think of how we live our lives.

    But this notion that there is so much oil on the planet that we don’t need to worry is just simple crazy and thoughtless.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:35pm

    Reply to #20

    woomera

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 08 2008

    Posts: 23

    Were you alive in the 70's?

    G’Day  Tecnet,You quite possibly were not alive in the 70’s when the oil shocks hit.  I was in Uni.  These shocks were short and sweet, but they left a warning to ALL Americans that life can be quite difficult, very quickly.  I was in Seattle at the time.  It made me buy a small car .  I also moved closer to work.  It also forced American car companies to make smaller cars.  The speed limit went down to 55mph.  It caused inflation, that required 18% interest rates to quell.  This left an ever lasting impression on me.  Luckily, it all went away, but it was obvious that things were gonna get real tough.  Next time it could stay that way.
    I started working in the oil patch to ‘help America’?  Sounds corny, but it was my intention.  At least I got a job that paid well. I still work on wells.  I bring them ‘on-line’ all the time.  I can tell you that the wells are being worked-over, coming up the hole all the time shooting new zones.  It’s only a matter of time before it becomes a ‘dry’ hole. 
    I went to California to see about work, but I was put off by all the wells that were being abandoned.  I wanted nothing to do with abandoning wells as a steady diet.  So I didn’t work in Californina. I worked in Oz offshore.  I did help abandon the biggest well that ever produced oil in Australia.  It was off shore in the Bass Straight.  The lads on the platform were a bit teary eyed when I began the operations, because they remembered  the whole platform shaking when it came on line.  It was #1 well in Bass Straight…and I plugged it.  It was dead!  End of an era out there for them.  It meant the beginning-of-the-end for them on the platform.
    Right now, I live in an area that produces 3 million barrels per day within 100km from where I’m wriing this, so I ain’t worried…for now.  I changed my vocation choice,  so I’m prepared.  Are U? 
    Regards,
    Woomera

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 4:41pm

    Reply to #12
    roamingpoke

    roamingpoke

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 22 2009

    Posts: 1

    Damnthematrix

    [quote=Damnthematrix]”Finding the energy to boil the water will be even tougher. Chevron could use oil instead of natural gas—literally burning oil to produce oil—but that would burn profits, too. So the company likely will be forced to import natural gas from overseas, an expensive process that involves chilling it to turn it into a liquid, then shipping it thousands of miles.”
    If EVER you needed an example of lower ERoEI…….  this is IT!  This example is a great one of clutching at straws.
    The Party’s Over guys…
    Mike
    [/quote]
    Well said. However, do you think there is any chance for ANY technology to be feasible at a given future price of a barrell of oil?
    For example, why do we think “in the box” by using old methods of steam extraction? Why not look into the possiblity of sound waves, aka microwaves.  If we can generate it on our kitchen cabinent to liquefy “molasses”, why not use it downhole? Electronic technology is already decades long into the finding of the potential oil reservoirs, why not equip the same technology to “liquify” the heavy crude?
    If sulphur is a by-product then engineering could be put in place to handle the potential hazard.  Perhaps when crude oil hits $300 a barrel, there will be a lot more feasible technologies to utilize to extract the product.
    Just saying.   
     
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 5:21pm

    Reply to #27
    roamingpoke

    roamingpoke

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 22 2009

    Posts: 1

    The End of Peak Cheap Oil

    [quote=Johnny Oxygen]But this notion that there is so much oil on the planet that we don’t need to worry is just simple crazy and thoughtless.
    [/quote]
    Your statement is true, but I would clarify it a little.  We have ended the era of cheap oil. There are still many deep canyons yet to be explored in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic (specifically Brazil).  I hope the new domestic laws in place will make if safer for the environment and the industry to explore.  Unfortunately, the cost of negligence has also exponentially increased the cost of finding “non-cheap” oil.  In 6000′ of water the spread cost to finding the fossil fuel is now about $1 million dollars per day with average drill times close to 90 days.  A 5 well platform would put the spread cost to nearly half a billion dollars.  Therefore, the unconventional oil plays (at least in the Deepwater GoM) HAVE to be economically prolific or it’s a non-starter.
    A point of interest, “Why would the Chinese invest nearly 10 billion dollars in Petrobras (Brazil’s national oil company) if the future potential at a predetermined contract price were not so feasible to their country?  I think they get the idea of Peak Cheap Oil. Oh, and by the way, they get to buy all that production with cheap American dollars!
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 5:29pm

    Reply to #12

    woomera

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 08 2008

    Posts: 23

    Schlumberger has microwave technology

    G’Day Damnthematrix,Big Blue (Schlumberger) bought this technology some years ago from Raytheon.  I was working for the mob when this came out.  I know I was excited, but maybe for naught.  Big Blue won’t put it out until it works.  Maybe never?
    http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_8329977
    http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news1.24c.html
    Regards,
    Woomera
     
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 7:21pm

    Reply to #27
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    Well.?? Follow Up on Oil and a digression of sorts

     Some things that are facts from my perspective: 
    1) No one has been able to really explain accurately how much oil resources are available in the earth’s crust. 
     2) We know they are not “fossil fuels” and did not come from decayed animal/plant life – which actually made no sense to me when I first heard it ages ago, but I swallowed the pill anyway (among several others)   
    3) The best  and most logical position I can find is that oil/gas is not being depleted but that the amounts are likely  vast and untapped. Russians ironically have  away of cutting through crap like climate change and peak oil..They have likely put the most unrestrained effort into understanding it.
    4) The corporate /political motivations to manipulate researchers, educators, and the general public is tremendous  while corruption, lies and manipulations are revealed regularly to an apathetic and reality-detached public — “just feed me more green stuff and show me some movies”.
    5) The themes/trends between supposedly disparate issues seem to be similar, whether it’s food, medicine, oil, “climate change” (AKA “Weather’), population control — it takes years for most of us to wake up – it took me a while and I am still waking up I guess..
    Now – As for the personal attack/comment about me and my work perspective,  I started out in the system (unknowingly I suppose) and am still “in the system”.. I think I work hard and study hard and am a good person. Not a leech – though I know many.  [ actually leeches are pretty important – too bad they get a bad rap]  A part of any prep plan should be to make sure you have valuable skills and talents that are needed once ( or if) the system leaves you or you leave it.    I would like to hear from one of who think you are not playing in the system anymore (even if not a gummint employee).  Understanding your dependencies and having alternatives is important part of the plan. Those whose success/ knowledge soley rely on the financial services sector will be the hardest hit – moreso than ‘gummint’ employees.    
    All of that said I believe in being thrifty ( note the screen name), and believe wasting resources of any type is not good.  Neither is concocting grand schemes to brainwash/force people to embrace one-world government, give up what little liberties they have  and step one foot closer to the new definition of slavery..  Idealistic, I know.. but hey .. you only live once.
    Now as far as me writing down all of the supporting  data for you here, I would say that is too much to expect.  Some of you stopped reading many sentences ago.   That’s why I made my little comment before breakfast and came back for more.  Go study the subject yourself.  Nobody here presents enough data to convince anyone else – not even the “owner’.. There’s enough to make you think about it and look into things for yourself. 
    I am new to this site, but not at all new to the concept espoused here. Been at the ‘being prepared’ game a long time in varying ways off and on.  I am still trying to figure out Martenson’s true angle because the feel and person type I sense here is different than most preparedness / self reliance sites.  Pardon me for expressing a generalization or opinion that this seems like the ‘preppy, urban, cafe latte  version of prepper sites..  To oversimplify, but maybe accurately – The country type/woods loving (mostly conservative or liberatrian) folks have been after these issues for decades (literally) and this site seems to be filled with many left leaning folks who are finally waking up and are rightly worried – but about the wrong causes of  things – IMO anyway.
    Even if we disagree on the source of the issue, we can hopefully agree that there WILL VERY LIKELY BE issues and we all need to get our houses in order. 
    Scout
    PS.. I got a chuckle from the comment form one guy saying  he bought a pistol and a shotgun -as something he could never imagine himself doing before!!.. All I can say to those of you who are  like that guy, please be careful – Buying a piano does not make one a musician..While anyone can learn to use a firearm pretty easily, your mindset / attitude and self control are the critical components.. You had better learn to be cool, think fast, fight, and yes – get in shape –  if you want that pistol to be worth a dang.  Learn to hunt.  Otherwise you are just an easy source of a good gun for the guy who did not buy one – and trust me, there are plenty of “nice people” who are planning on using your preps instead of doing their own..      
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 7:46pm

    Reply to #27

    jturbo68

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 04 2009

    Posts: 86

    Scout, Another Abiotic Oil Man

     Scout,
    Welcome aboard.
    If you are not concerned about Peak Oil or Climate Change, why bother being a prepper? 
    What is your outlook; Why do you do it?
    Prepping is prepping, so in that sense it is all good.  However I think reaching the right conclusions about what is happening and why is important as well.  We work on all aspects of that.
    This isnt really a survivalist site, for the most part.  Maybe that is the difference of tone that you notice.
     
     
     
     
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 8:17pm

    #28

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    Not a good start

    Scout

    You know very little about this site and the individuals that it is made up of.

    We have a thread called “The Definitive Firearms Thread”

    This thread goes into a great deal of depth about self protection and use of firearms. There are some very knowledgable people on this site in regards this topic.

    I think you should check the arrogance at the door before you assume you have us all figured out.

    If you want to believe that there is plenty of oil and its only being hidden from us fine. This site is about those very types of discussions but you’ll find that you will be expected to show proof of your beliefs here if you want to be taken seriously.

    Why not bring at least as much information to the argument that Chris has before disregarding his side of the argument?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 8:18pm

    #29

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    Scout For Links?

    Scout

    I would probably be more likely to take your words seriously regarding your refutations of Peak Oil, if you actually posted links to actual research and news articles, with relevant quotes included prior to the links.

    Poet

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, May 29, 2011 - 9:44pm

    #30
    RoswellCrash

    RoswellCrash

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 17 2009

    Posts: 0

    Oil Supply

    Chris, your note just above the first chart suggests that you are unaware of reasons why EIA would upwardly revise the crude oil supply.  It is possible that recent shale oil production across the United States is having a significant impact on U.S. domestic production.  I’m seeing it first hand here in New Mexico and Texas and reading about it elsewhere.  See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 12:58am

    #31
    Bruce C.

    Bruce C.

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 04 2011

    Posts: 0

    Interesting subject and speculation, but that is all.

    As interesting as the subject of “peak oil” is, I’m convinced that the US will only do what is the cheapest and most expedient at every stage of crisis and decline, if that is indeed what happens. Similar to “global warming” there is no political payoff to acting preemptively (other than setting up a system that further taxes the status quo as an excuse), especially since the data easy to obfuscate. Personally, I’m most interested in seeing how people respond to it all, the “developing” economies in particular.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 1:49am

    #32
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT READ

    YOU KNOW, I HAVE NOT READ ALL THE POSTS, BUT IN MY OPINION SMALL DISAGREEMENTS ARE NOT WORTH SPENDING ENERGY ON!  WE ARE AT A POINT IN CIVILIZATION WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITIES TO GROW INTO SOMETHING BETTER AND YET WE SIT HERE AND QUIBBLE OVER THINGS WHICH ARE IRRELEVANT. THERE WILL BE A SMALL NUMBER TO SURVIVE AFTER 100 YEARS, SO GET YOUR MINDS IN AND AT A HIGHER POINT OF THINKING. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    1

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 2:27am

    #33

    dave s

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 20 2009

    Posts: 1

    RE: Well.?? Follow Up on Oil and a digression of sorts

    Some things that are facts from my perspective: 

    1) No one has been able to really explain accurately how much oil resources are available in the earth’s crust. 

     2) We know they are not “fossil fuels” and did not come from decayed animal/plant life – which actually made no sense to me when I first heard it ages ago, but I swallowed the pill anyway (among several others)   

    3) The best  and most logical position I can find is that oil/gas is not being depleted but that the amounts are likely  vast and untapped. Russians ironically have  away of cutting through crap like climate change and peak oil..They have likely put the most unrestrained effort into understanding it.

    Scout, you have swallowed the wrong pill.  There will be nothing to see here at this website until you give up what I believe I can say everyone here considers the purest form of fantasy:  abiotic oil.  You may as well be at a medical convention handing out brochures on eugenics.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 2:44am

    Reply to #28
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    Ok Johnny O2 - Another try

    I did not mean to appear arrogant – I guess it just comes natural.–smile. I did not think I have YOU ALL figured out – just most of the posts had a certain air about them.    It is certainly about more than Peak Oil – I think the site is about alot more than that..  The Peak oil post caught my attention and that’s where I started.. Like I said – no one here or anywhere else has even come close to proving the remaining oil is scarce or endangered – it’s sort of like worrying about the sun becoming a red giant – to me anyway.   No one here has shown data that I have seen coming close to conclusive about  a real shortage – Rather the evidence goes the other way.   I still believe in being conservation minded despite the failure to show a scarcity. I don’t think I enagaged in a firearms dialogue –  Protection of life and property  is integral to any solution if one is serious it is  not about “the firearm” but about the person.  I was commenting about a particular persons comment about buying a gun – not the gun.. Good gun and shooting thread are abundant  – not at all why I’m here. –
    Google “Peak Oil” for yourself and start reading. I don’ t need you or anyone to “take me seriously”.   I have nothing to prove .I can show you a bunch of links based on my reading, but I am not writing a research paper here, I am having a conversation. ( or trying anyway)
    I stated a few facts on my reply ( at least as I see them now) Can you refute them with or without writing a research  paper?   Just tell me why oil is so scarce.   Should be simple if it’s such a forgone conclusion.   And tell me why you think exploration is so tightly limited  by the government..  What do they not want people to know? —  sounds like anti fact-finding.      I am not  disregarding Mr Martenson.. I just don’t see his case in this topic  as very compelling -not nearly as compelling as say .. this one   http://educate-yourself.org/cn/oilnotfossilbfuel29sep05.shtml 
     OK there’s a link.
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 3:15am

    Reply to #33
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    Medical Convention

    Would that be the same medical convention full of doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and bureaucrats advising us to live on a diet mostly composed of sugar, heavily processed rancid oils, and artificial flavoring in order to stay healthy – but if that does not work (and it won’t) we have all sorts of drugs to treat your diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, CAD, cancer and depression from living on our government sanctioned diet – and don’t worry our drugs are cheap (cause taxpayers subsidize them).. But then instead of dying of old age, we’ll make you hopeful and put you through countless procedures, chemical treatments, radiation scans (that industry needs your money too).. ??    Not to change the subject, but your medical analogy is very timely and relates well to the matter at hand. This seems to be a common strategy at this site — I wonder where I have seen this before?   You and others insist proof from me on my opinion, while you casually say I will find nothing here until I give up something you say I believe in.. I did not know I “believed” in it.  Either it’s a fact or not.. All along very little logic and  no real rationale in the information as presented .. Just a lot of “everyone knows this and everyone knows that”.  I could just as gratuitously state that your opinion is fantasy too. The whole fossil thing is actually pretty fantasy-like to me..   Major flawed argument by you- just because 9 out 10 people here say X, does not make X true..    . 
    Classic..   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 3:31am

    Reply to #29
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    Ok well try this one - Other dude says it's fantasy - Show Me.

    Here’s an article I find very well referenced  http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6261 Quote
    So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article ‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’ (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals,“I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory—for want of a better word—seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.”Unquote
    I just remembered we have at work a Russian-American engineer who used to work in the petroleum industry — I will get that angle/opinion on this question next week.   

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 3:43am

    Reply to #32
    Scout

    Scout

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 26 2011

    Posts: 0

    I Don't Agree

    I don’t see a concocted problem being used as camoflage for worldwide manipulation of energy and  ‘people control’ as a “small disagreement.”  What “better things” would you like us to grow into by stiffling debate and open dialogue? 
    And what is your basis of estimate for the number of survivors in 100 years?  
     What is your “higher point of thinking” ?
     I know what mine is and “it” makes me able to discuss this subject without fear of the future, or anything for that matter – including your ALL- CAPS typing..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 3:46am

    Reply to #33

    jturbo68

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 04 2009

    Posts: 86

    Abiotic Coal Anyone, Anyone?

     Interesting.  Hadnt heard about Abiotic Coal.  Thats really cool and seemingly impossible.  Im sure there is some perfectly great off the wall explaination about how that happens… Yet somehow not scientifically explained at all.
    For oil, I would look for the expected Soviet decline in Oil Production, and then see that  they are past peak as well.  We will see how that plays out over time.  There are many producers that appear to be turning the corner on production, so we shouldnt have to wait much longer for real impacts and statistics to bolster the peak oil cases.
    I would also point out that the Majors ( Exxon, etc) only control around 7-10 percent of the oil brought to market.  They are not in control of the price as your link suggests.
    Have Fun with your NWO Conspiracy driven view of the world, we all have to choose the set of beliefs that make our predicament make sense,  I am comfortable with the side of the fence that I have chosen.  It seems more Data driven and less innuendo based then your path.
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 3:46am

    Reply to #33

    dave s

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 20 2009

    Posts: 1

    Scout!

    Scout, if I joined an oncological chat room and a couple of days later wanted to start posting about there being no such thing as cancer, I would anticipate having those beliefs challenged.  Further, I would not suggest that all the oncologists needed to send me papers on cancer before I needed to actually cite my sources.  If 9 out of 10 people believe something, it is pretty much on the 1 in 10 guy to put up or shut up, as they say.  Many, of not most, of the people here are contrarian thinkers or they would be getting their news from MSNBC.  But you are ranging over the tiredest of tired, exploded theories and you are providing nothing but the traditional “the Russians have it all figured out” defense to that theory.  At least you aren’t  over on the Oil Drum with this stuff, God help you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 4:25am

    Reply to #28

    ckessel

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 12 2008

    Posts: 166

    Scout wrote:I did not mean

    [quote=Scout]
    I did not mean to appear arrogant – I guess it just comes natural.–smile. I did not think I have YOU ALL figured out – just most of the posts had a certain air about them.    It is certainly about more than Peak Oil – I think the site is about alot more than that..  The Peak oil post caught my attention and that’s where I started.. 
    Like I said – no one here or anywhere else has even come close to proving the remaining oil is scarce or endangered – it’s sort of like worrying about the sun becoming a red giant – to me anyway.   No one here has shown data that I have seen coming close to conclusive about  a real shortage – Rather the evidence goes the other way.   I still believe in being conservation minded despite the failure to show a scarcity. I don’t think I enagaged in a firearms dialogue –  Protection of life and property  is integral to any solution if one is serious it is  not about “the firearm” but about the person.  I was commenting about a particular persons comment about buying a gun – not the gun.. Good gun and shooting thread are abundant  – not at all why I’m here. –
    Google “Peak Oil” for yourself and start reading. I don’ t need you or anyone to “take me seriously”.   I have nothing to prove .I can show you a bunch of links based on my reading, but I am not writing a research paper here, I am having a conversation. ( or trying anyway)
    I stated a few facts on my reply ( at least as I see them now) Can you refute them with or without writing a research  paper?   Just tell me why oil is so scarce.   Should be simple if it’s such a forgone conclusion.   And tell me why you think exploration is so tightly limited  by the government..  What do they not want people to know? —  sounds like anti fact-finding.      I am not  disregarding Mr Martenson.. I just don’t see his case in this topic  as very compelling -not nearly as compelling as say .. this one   http://educate-yourself.org/cn/oilnotfossilbfuel29sep05.shtml 
     OK there’s a link.
    [/quote]
    Scout,
    The article on this gentleman may help with your search for facts. M. King Hubbert – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I consider M. King Hubbert much more compelling and credible than Jerry Mazza. But that is just me.
    I don’t think anyone here is saying that oil is scarce, especially Dr. Martenson. The issue really has to do with net energy which is how much is left after you have expended energy to recover, process and make energy available to use.
    There is data in the Essential Articles section of the site and the Crash Course covers net energy thoroughly if you are interested.I also suggest you check out Admiral Hyman Rickovers speech to the AMA in 1957 to get a feel for just how long this subject has been known about.
    As far as the points you outlined in your earlier post,  I don’t see them as facts necessarily but they do qualify as beliefs and opinions.
    Coop

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 5:07am

    #34

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    $200+ oil? Not likely.

    I very much doubt we’ll see oil above $200, in today’s dollars. The world economy just couldn’t take that and will more likely slip into another recession, thus crimping demand and reducing the price.

    It’s still not a pretty picture but I just can’t see $200 oil for very long and $300, $400 oil is simply out of the question except, maybe on the black market after collapse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 8:30am

    Reply to #2

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Canada and Dutch diease

    [quote=phillipsd]Thanks for your response.  I was not familiar with that term.  I can see the problem now.  
    But is it worse than what we have in the US considering how well Canada weathered the financial crisis.  They had a balanced budget for many years before the crisis, they have been paying down their relatively low national debt, and they have emerged from the crisis with the world’s most stable banking system.
    [/quote]
    But see here that is exactly the problem. How did we balance our budget? How did we keep our banking system stable? We financed them by selling oil of course! What does that cause? A currency whose value keeps going up and up… and well, when you have a currency that can buy anything in the world, you stop making anything for yourself. Have you heard of anything “Made in Canada” recently? I certainly haven’t… I can think of Bombardier, but what else? Not much of anything else of consequence AFAIK
    See, that’s the problem with the Dutch disease. In the end, after the crash and other countries stop buying our oil, everyone still loses their jobs
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 11:33am

    Reply to #27
    Dscott

    Dscott

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2011

    Posts: 3

     Scout wrote:Some things

     [quote=Scout]
    Some things that are facts from my perspective: 
    1) No one has been able to really explain accurately how much oil resources are available in the earth’s crust. 
    We know there is LOADS of oil in the earths crust and IF it all gushed out the ground we would have centuries of oil at our present levels of consumption…… but it doesnt gush out of the ground anymore and more useful questions to ask are:
    -How fast can we extract it from the ground and get it into our fuel tanks (flow rate)
    -What are the financial and energy costs to extract it from the ground and get it into our fuel tanks (energy returned over energy invested)
    Any informed discussion of peak oil must include these questions
     2) We know they are not “fossil fuels” and did not come from decayed animal/plant life – which actually made no sense to me when I first heard it ages ago, but I swallowed the pill anyway (among several others)   
    This is another irrelevant academic question. Even if oil is abiotic it might still take thousands of years to produce what we burn in a day.
    I am still trying to figure out Martenson’s true angle because the feel and person type I sense here is different than most preparedness / self reliance sites.  Pardon me for expressing a generalization or opinion that this seems like the ‘preppy, urban, cafe latte  version of prepper sites..  To oversimplify, but maybe accurately – The country type/woods loving (mostly conservative or liberatrian) folks have been after these issues for decades (literally) and this site seems to be filled with many left leaning folks who are finally waking up and are rightly worried – but about the wrong causes of  things – IMO anyway.
    Even if we disagree on the source of the issue, we can hopefully agree that there WILL VERY LIKELY BE issues and we all need to get our houses in order.
    [/quote]
    Glad we agree on something. I think your caffe latte urban prepper site comment is very fair.  Alot of people think being preppared for a dispruption to the norm is the preserve of crackpot conspiracy theorists (and those living in areas prone to natural disasters). Chris is trying to teach ordinary people of all political colours to prepare for resource depletion and shocks to a very fragile world economy.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 12:11pm

    #35
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 880

    To change the timbre of this

    To change the timbre of this conversation, is now the time to top off our farm tanks? Will the coming rout lower oil prices temporarily? Are the current prices as low as they’re gonna be for a while? We’ve 6mos diesel on the farm with capacity for 1.5yrs. ie. I need 1500 gallons to top off storage.

     

    Thanks guys,Robie(husband,father,farmer,optometrist)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 12:51pm

    #36

    RNcarl

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 13 2008

    Posts: 179

    Counter - Contrarian view?

    Well,

    I never thought I would be “taking sides” against peak oil. OK, actually I am not. What I want to do, is ask the folks here to be the contrarian that they say they want to be.

    We have been told to question, everything. So, why do we accept with open arms the theory of “peak oil”?

    Is there overwhelming evidence or just a tell-tale sign?

    I look around and see that there is not a single thing in my live that isn’t touched by oil. Even the idea of the internet is being made possible by oil. From the food I eat to the water I drink is delivered by oil. “Our way of life” just cannot exist without oil – and lots of it. I mean lots of it! With what would we replace this liquid genie that grants our every wish?

    Perhaps, that is why this discussion is so visceral. I could hardly catch my breath when I really thought hard about what it would mean if the supply of oil dropped by say, 20%. How about even 10%?

    What does it really mean that the Saudis have never produced more than 9mbpd? Can they produce 12.5mbpd? I don’t know. I do know that the Texas fields are now nothing more than a mere shadow of their former self. Hey, I did not know that Pennsylvania was the birthplace of commercial oil production until I began to educate myself on “Peak Oil”. What is Pennsylvania’s oil production these days?

    When I traveled abroad a few years ago I was able to turn and look back at the U.S. I was humbled What I saw was a bunch of spoiled little brats. You know, the type of kids, they have everything they ever wanted, gained off the sweat and hard work of their parents, only to ask and demand more. Now some kids of course, act like they know better and play nice, share their toys and even share some with the “poor kids”. But when their motives are challenged, they act to their true form and the brat comes out.

    Perhaps, we haven’t reached “Peak oil,” perhaps we have reached “Peak consumption.” The children in the US. want more-more-more. But, now there are more children in the sandbox to play.

    Said another way, there are 100 persons that are trapped in an air-tight room. It has just enough air to last long enough for 80 people to live long enough to be rescued. If all 100 continue to live, all will perish before help arrives. They all know help is coming. What do they do?

    What do we do? Lets not stop those who question. Lets invite it so that we can, just perhaps, locate a small crack in that air-tight room that will allow us all to survive.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 2:21pm

    #37
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    ?????????????????

    How in the world did we get into this discussion on whether there is Peak Oil?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 2:52pm

    Reply to #37

    ckessel

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 12 2008

    Posts: 166

    ewilkerson wrote:How in the

    [quote=ewilkerson]
    How in the world did we get into this discussion on whether there is Peak Oil?
    [/quote]
    I consider that the level of interest/posts etc. regarding PO demonstrates how much a true predicament which has the potential to alter the course of civilization can stir our emotions. Certainly the full range of the Kubler-Ross scale is evident here.  That in large part is why IMHO Chris established this site  ……..  increase awareness through discussion.
    Unfortunately, as RNCarl pointed out in his post above where he likened the predicament to being trapped in a mine, our situation does only have outcomes and our actions or our inability to act will largely determine what that is.
    In answer to Rncarl what immediately comes to mind is as follows:
    1) Know you have a real predicament on your hands. (acceptance)
    2) Lower the heartrate and  prevent panic. (action – via conservation)
    3) Use our minds to look for the cracks – (spiritual)
    4) Work together to achieve the best outcome. (community)
    5) Know that our best answers will come from a well informed group since each one of us can occasionally have an error in judgement. (humility)
    That’s my $.02 cents worth. Have a great memorial Day.
    Coop

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 4:13pm

    #38
    jerryr

    jerryr

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2008

    Posts: 46

    A story about Jack Kenney and abiotic oil

    Scout,

    Jack Kenney is one of the foremost promoters of the cornucopian version of abiotic oil theory in the Western world today.  But does he have any scientific credibility?  Here’s a cautionary tale by another scientist, Werner Aeschbach-Hertig, who encountered Kenney in one of his research projects:

    http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/09/old-story.html

    Kenney told me about his ideas on the origin of oil. According to him, oil was not derived from biological matter, it was abiogenically formed in the deep Earth at high pressures and temperatures. I did not know very much about oil at that time (and I still am no expert), but I knew that this abiogenic theory of petroleum origin, made popular by Thomas Gold, was highly controversial. I wasn’t convinced, but I couldn’t really be sure. Only a bit later, when I had the samples analyzed and reported the results, I got a better idea of what kind of person this Jack Kenney was.

    But first, a crash course in helium geochemistry (of which I am an expert) is needed. Helium in the air has a certain 3He/4He ratio (about 1 to a million). Compared to that standard, the isotope ratio in helium from the Earth’s mantle is about 10 times higher, whereas that in helium coming from the Earth’s crust is nearly 100 times lower. Thus, deep mantle helium and shallow crustal helium are easily and very clearly distinguished. Because Kenney thinks hydrocarbons come from very deep layers, he reckons that helium isotopes could help pinpoint oil reservoirs. In Flanders, he was looking for the high 3He/4He isotope ratios that are indicative of fluids derived from the Earth’s mantle. He wanted to sell the local government the idea to drill for oil there.

    I understood that Kenney had hoped to find mantle helium. What we had measured, however, where very low 3He/4He ratios, perfectly typical for crustal fluids. There was not the slightest indication of mantle gases. This was what I wrote to him. But he did not accept that. He did not doubt the data, but he argued that even the slightest little bit of 3He that was present in the samples would be an indication of deep origin, and hence would justify to look for deep hydrocarbon sources in the area. We sent mails back and forth, but he wouldn’t give in. Well, we got paid and it was none of my business, after all, what he did with the data. I hope he couldn’t convince anyone to waste money on a multiply flawed and fake theory: First of all, there is probably no deep abiogenic oil, and secondly, even if it existed, the data did not give the slightest hint that it was to be found at that particular place.

    So, I got my first taste of rather questionable theories paired with a willingness to commit outright fraud by an exponent of the petroleum business.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 7:18pm

    #39

    noodlydoo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 05 2009

    Posts: 2

    Sheesh

    Well, your all wrong. Cool, Ok…kidding, but seriously, the gloom and doom as well as the “wheres the evidence” is both misguided.

    Clearly, oil and gas will not last forever. That is just a basic principle of physics. Do I think we are at peak? ….personally….yes.

    Having said that, do I think all these articles about planting food, buying guns and building forts are over the top….check yes on that one as well.

    Lets look at some simple facts (happy to have anyone challenge my data)

    The developed economies use oil much more intensively than the developing economies, and Canada and the United States stand almost alone in their consumption of oil per capita (see graph).  For instance, oil consumption in the United States and Canada equals almost 3 gallons per day per capita.  (The difference is these countries’ transportation sectors, with their dependence on private vehicles to travel relatively long distances.)  Oil consumption in the rest of the OECD equals 1.4 gallons per day per capita.  Outside of the OECD, oil consumption equals 0.2 gallons per day per capita.

    Lets extrapolate the data. There are just under 2 billion people that make up the OECD. The US and Canada is a rounding number in that figure. So 95% of the worlds population lives on just 1/2 the amount of oil the US lives on PER DAY. the other 2/3 of the entires world population lives on roughly 1/15 of what the average american lives on per day….that’s 4 billion people folks.

    Continuing…..2/3 of oil production is used for gas.  Lets just say for example a 1970’s crisis where people are forced to only buy gas on alternating days (Americans are very REACTIVE). That would likely initiate a dramatic shift where the little honda CVCC (or something like it) makes a MaJor comeback, doubling fuel efficiency almost overnight, or, said another way, dropping oil demand dramatically overnight.

    I could go on and on…but it’s likely that changes are coming, changes that will effect quality of life here in the US more so than most any other country on earth. But will it come to guns and foreging for a meal?  That’s a wee bit dramatic. I have a bridge that’s for sale at a great price if anyone is interested.

    On a side note, 13 million US children will experience hunger at some point this year. Maybe we need to focus what’s already right in front of us.

    On another side note, I think where this site really looses the major concept is everyones fixation with peak oil. What keeps me up at night is peak everything else!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 7:30pm

    #40

    woomera

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 08 2008

    Posts: 23

    Iran oil output 'may drop drastically by 2015'

     

    Iran oil output ‘may drop drastically by 2015’

    G’Day, Just to add a cherry on this CM blog:

    Whenever the #2 in OPEC starts to whinge, ya ought to listen.

    Click on the above link.

    Regards,

    Woomera

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 8:59pm

    Reply to #33

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Classic

    [quote=Scout]Would that be the same medical convention full of doctors and pharmaceutical companies, and bureaucrats advising us to live on a diet mostly composed of sugar, heavily processed rancid oils, and artificial flavoring in order to stay healthy[/quote]
    Oh really?  And where/when did you come across such a convention?
    Classic….
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 9:07pm

    Reply to #39

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    noodlydoo

    [quote=noodlydoo]Continuing…..2/3 of oil production is used for gas.  Lets just say for example a 1970’s crisis where people are forced to only buy gas on alternating days (Americans are very REACTIVE). That would likely initiate a dramatic shift where the little honda CVCC (or something like it) makes a MaJor comeback, doubling fuel efficiency almost overnight, or, said another way, dropping oil demand dramatically overnight.[/quote]
    That’s all very well, but what if you are a family with two SUV’s?  AND you owe money on both vehicles, AND you can’t sell them, certainly not for the remainf value of the debt…?  What if you can’t get your SUV to work to pay for a new small car?
    [quote=noodlydoo]
    On another side note, I think where this site really looses the major concept is everyones fixation with peak oil. What keeps me up at night is peak everything else![/quote]
    Nothing much keeps me awake at night….  By the time I get to bed I’m too exhausted to stay awake!
    I don’t think this site is obsessive with PO as much as it is with wealth, gold, and silver personally!!
    CMdotcom is about the three Es…..  done the Crash Course yey?
     
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, May 30, 2011 - 10:56pm

    Reply to #39

    sofistek

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 02 2008

    Posts: 557

    Overnight

    Noodlydoo, it’s not possible to double efficiency overnight. It takes 12-15 years (probably more now) to turn over the fleet. It would take years to see significant gains in efficiency. If the populace is reactive, instead of pro-active (and all indications are that it is), then you should be prepared for far worse impacts than you are. And remember that it will be al almost continual decline, once it starts, so doubling efficiency won’t be enough, it will have to continue until virtually no oil is consumed. I know it’s easier to believe that the change will be slow and relatively painless. If you want to continue believing that, then good luck to you, because you’ll likely need it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 3:12am

    Reply to #2

    Mark_BC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 298

    FireJack wrote:I think we

    [quote=FireJack]
    I think we can all agree at this point that world governments will continue to do the worst things they could coming into peak oil.
    Trying to force the economy to grow by racking up bigger and bigger debts until it all falls apart is the only future I see right now. The recent majority win by the conservatives is proof of what people are looking for here in Canada. The number one thing on their chart “The economy!” My guess is that it’s going to be a fast collapse as a result.
    [/quote]
    Jack, I’m taking steps now to leave the country, for good if need be. I don’t think Canada is going to be in much better shape than the US when this thing goes down.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 4:00am

    Reply to #2
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    Re: Canada and Dutch Disease

    Thanks again for your insight.  Do you think that I would be better off staying the the US?  I plan to move to the Victoria area and will most likely work in an educational field.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 4:23am

    Reply to #2
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    FireJack and Mark_BC on Canada

    Please tell me why you don’t think Canada will do well with Peak Oil downturn.  I am getting ready to move there next year.  Am I better off staying in the US?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 4:41am

    Reply to #39

    noodlydoo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 05 2009

    Posts: 2

    Reply

    See….exactly what I was refering to. Exactly at what moment in time are we going to be “out of oil”, or “short of oil”.  So I guess I might wake up this wednesday and suddenly….were out of oil? There is trillions of barrells of oil left. Is it probable that the economies of the world will start to feel the pinch between increasing demand and limiting supply….of course, its called price increases. As price increases, demand will decrease. Don’t believe me, look no further than 3 years ago.  As price increases, people will respond by driving less, buying fuel efficient cars, changing eating and consumption habits. Not because they want to, but because they have to.Should people take prudent steps such as buying commodities and foregoing Hummer3’s…..I think it would be prudent. But this gloom and doom, as if the end of the world is nigh. Where exactly is the world going to go?
    Someone wrote about SUV owners not able to sell their cars and buy fuel efficient ones. Yes, that’s true, the resale value of something that gets 14mpg is likely to suffer as we move forward, and ding dongs that made those poor economic decisions will suffer, but the earth will not stop rotating as a result.
    I concede there will be changes as resources become more scarce, but I can’t recall ever seeing a single (Positive) article on this website about substitution, enhancement or new technologies altergether that will soften the impact of these resources. And although we may not have the answer yet……the answer will likely lie in several technologies, like the solar mirror reactors. Easy to build, very efficient. Will it offset oil…no, but it will make up for some, as will other technologies. This is not an all or none scenario.
    The reason the world is slow to change is that there is to much  money still to be made in oil. As that changes, and profit centers change, we will start to see changes in innovation and adoption. We are already seeing it now.  Smart car in Europe gets close to 80mpg using a mercedes turbo diesel. Because of silly politics, the same smart car in the US has a mitsubishi gas engine that gets 30 something mpg.  
    These changes won’t happen by waking up some morning….there may be some supply shocks, but supply shocks usually bring a fairly rapid change in habits and consumption. Its just that we havn’t had supply shocks here in the US in a long while. Other countries tend to adapt fairly quickly to such shocks. Why would be any different? 
    Much more likely is to see increases in living costs, gas, food etc, which will be experienced over time…..like right now.  But rarely does anything in economics or economies move in a straight line. There will be increases and pullbacks. People will have to adapt, but I doubt, HIGHLY, I am going to wake up sometime this week and find the world has changed overnight.
    PS. CM predicted oil prices would rise again. Hey….me too….that why I bought call options on oil.  Wow…I must be a wizard.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 4:41am

    Reply to #2

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Canada and Dutch Disease

    [quote=phillipsd]Thanks again for your insight.  Do you think that I would be better off staying the the US?  I plan to move to the Victoria area and will most likely work in an educational field.
    [/quote]
    If you have no responsibilities that keep you in your own country (good job, children, sick relatives, etc.) it may still be a good strategy to leave your own country and try to make your life elsewhere. This way, if the SHTF in your new country, you can always go back to America, but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses… For reference, I live in Japan right now, but I may have taken the wrong bet, so, as the expression goes, your mileage may vary…
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 5:12am

    Reply to #39

    Travlin

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 15 2010

    Posts: 524

    noodlydoo wrote:There is

    [quote=noodlydoo]
    There is trillions of barrells of oil left. Is it probable that the economies of the world will start to feel the pinch between increasing demand and limiting supply….of course, its called price increases. As price increases, demand will decrease. Don’t believe me, look no further than 3 years ago.  As price increases, people will respond by driving less, buying fuel efficient cars, changing eating and consumption habits. Not because they want to, but because they have to.
    [/quote]
    Noodlydoo
    Yep.  What you are missing here is that we already have a fragile economy with too much debt.  That downturn you speak of in 2009 had very bad effects on everyone that will continue.  We can still have lots of oil in the ground, but when supply can’t meet demand, in an economic system that must grow to finance its debts, the wheels start falling off. As pointed out previously, this decline of supply will continually grow worse so it forms a vicious cycle.  You are also missing the factor of Energy Invested Over Energy Returned. Price doesn’t matter when it takes more energy to extract and process it than you get back. Also technology doesn’t create energy.
    View the Crash Course video, and then read the book.  I understand where you are coming from, but you only have half the story.
    Travlin 
     
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 7:51am

    Reply to #39

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    noodlydoo

    [quote=noodlydoo]See….exactly what I was refering to. Exactly at what moment in time are we going to be “out of oil”, or “short of oil”.  [/quote]
    NEXT YEAR?  We won’t be suddenly “out of oil”, but I think next year we’ll see ourselves “short of oil”.
    [quote=noodlydoo]So I guess I might wake up this wednesday and suddenly….were out of oil? There is trillions of barrels of oil left.[/quote]
    Well……  there’s probably just ONE trillion barrels left.  BUT that isn’t the point, what matters is how fast can we get that trillion out, what will be the energy cost, and will it cost more than $120/150 which is the threshhold at which the economy tanks?
    [quote=noodlydoo]Should people take prudent steps such as buying commodities and foregoing Hummer3’s…..I think it would be prudent. But this gloom and doom, as if the end of the world is nigh. Where exactly is the world going to go?[/quote]
    Why, nowhere of course!  More to the point where will YOU be going, especially food wise?
    [quote=noodlydoo]Someone wrote about SUV owners not able to sell their cars and buy fuel efficient ones. Yes, that’s true, the resale value of something that gets 14mpg is likely to suffer as we move forward, and ding dongs that made those poor economic decisions will suffer, but the earth will not stop rotating as a result.[/quote]
    That was me.  Nice cliche, but again you miss the point……  If people can’t afford to adapt, just how do you think they will fare?  You dismiss this altogether without even seemingly thinking about it….  it’s a serious issue don’t you think?  If I suddenly find myself unable to fill my car up, I’ll just park it out on the street with the keys in the ignition, no skin off my nose.  It’s only a car, it owes me nothing, and I don’t need it to survive.  It’s called abandoning the Matrix.
    [quote=noodlydoo]I concede there will be changes as resources become more scarce, but I can’t recall ever seeing a single (Positive) article on this website about substitution, enhancement or new technologies altogether that will soften the impact of these resources. [/quote]
    Hence the concern…….  WHERE are those alternatives, capable of delivering the 30+ ERoEIs we currently take for granted.  I ask again….  have you done the crash course, and in particular the energy budgeting bit.  Because if you haven’t you are not talking at our level here.
    [quote=noodlydoo]And although we may not have the answer yet……the answer will likely lie in several technologies, like the solar mirror reactors. Easy to build, very efficient. Will it offset oil…no, but it will make up for some, as will other technologies. This is not an all or none scenario.[/quote]
    You can’t make claims like that in isolation of the other 2 Es.  Where will the money come from?  Where will the resources?
    [quote=noodlydoo]The reason the world is slow to change is that there is too much  money still to be made in oil. As that changes, and profit centers change, we will start to see changes in innovation and adoption. We are already seeing it now.  Smart car in Europe gets close to 80mpg using a mercedes turbo diesel. Because of silly politics, the same smart car in the US has a mitsubishi gas engine that gets 30 something mpg. [/quote]
    It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car…..  Before you even turn the key on!  You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels………
    [quote=noodlydoo]These changes won’t happen by waking up some morning….there may be some supply shocks, but supply shocks usually bring a fairly rapid change in habits and consumption. Its just that we havn’t had supply shocks here in the US in a long while. Other countries tend to adapt fairly quickly to such shocks. Why would be any different? 
    Much more likely is to see increases in living costs, gas, food etc, which will be experienced over time…..like right now.  But rarely does anything in economics or economies move in a straight line. There will be increases and pullbacks. People will have to adapt, but I doubt, HIGHLY, I am going to wake up sometime this week and find the world has changed overnight.[/quote]
    Past shocks were nothing like what is coming.  In the 70’s and 80’s, we still had three decades of growth left in the tank.  No more.  Quite likely, as of next year we will start to see declines.  What you don’t seem to understand is that we built the Matrix one brick at a time, as and when it was needed with ever increasing oil supplies, and dirt cheap to boot.  Now you want to replace the whole lot in no time flat with decreasing energy that is constantly getting dearer to boot.
    [quote=noodlydoo]PS. CM predicted oil prices would rise again. Hey….me too….that why I bought call options on oil.  Wow…I must be a wizard.
    [/quote]
    Good luck with that…..  I’ve invested ALL of our wealth into getting ready.  AFAIC, that’s the only worthwhile investment left.
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 11:12am

    #41

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 330

    Maintaining a Positive Attitude is one thing. . .

    Noodlydo,

    Reading your comments, I think you need to watch TCC again; this time in a quiet room.  If you come to the same conclusions afterwards, then I applaud your positive outlook, and wish you the best of luck.  Everything will be just fine. . .

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 6:26pm

    Reply to #41

    noodlydoo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 05 2009

    Posts: 2

    Replies

    Rector, Mike,Thanks for the thougtful replies. I have watched the crash course. Nothing in there that I disagree with. I guess I take issue with the speed that many people on this board think that the end of the world will arrive. Then it dawned on me….rarely, I mean very rarely, does anything (war excluded) change so dramatically overnight.
    Go outside….feel the sun on your face. Life is short….find peace.
     
    PS. Some hopeful alternatives:
    Algae based biofuels have been hyped in the media as a potential panacea to our Crude Oil based Transportation problems. Algae could yield more than 2000 gallons of fuel per acre per year of production.[1] Algae based fuels are being successfully tested by the navy[2]
    $0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year.  http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 7:16pm

    Reply to #41

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    feel the sun on your face

    [quote=noodlydoo]Rector, Mike,Go outside….feel the sun on your face. Life is short….find peace.[/quote]
    You mean, like this……..?
    Powering up for the collapse
    Composting the Permaculture Way
    Abundance at last
    Finally, Zone 1 under control….
    The not so Blank Slate revisited
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, May 31, 2011 - 7:19pm

    Reply to #41

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    noodlydoo wrote:$0.03/kw

    [quote=noodlydoo]
    $0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year.  http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj
    [/quote]
    So then……..  if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 12:50am

    Reply to #39

    SailAway

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 11 2010

    Posts: 234

    Damnthematrix wrote:It

    [quote=Damnthematrix]
    It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car…..  Before you even turn the key on!  You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels………
    [[/quote]
    Where did you get these data from? I’m interested to read more about this.
     
    Thanks
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 2:28am

    #42

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    Re:Damnthematrix wrote: It

    I think he got it from Scout Laughing

    Claaaaaasic

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 3:36am

    Reply to #41

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Solar power at $0.03/kw?

    [quote=Damnthematrix][quote=noodlydoo]
    $0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year.  http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj
    [/quote]
    So then……..  if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?
    [/quote]
    Extremely good point! I’m sure they could repay all their debts by selling this cheap energy to Germany… NOT
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 4:08am

    #43

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Shell withdrawing from Kashagan

    Stratfor.com

    Energy giant Royal Dutch/Shell will close its offices in Kazakhstan on May 30, after laying off its staff over the past few weeks. Shell is a critical member of the Kashagan oil project in Kazakhstan’s section of the Caspian Sea – one of the so-called “Big 3” energy projects in the country. Shell’s decision has put the future of the massive energy project in doubt, along with much of Kazakhstan’s future oil expansion and ability to supply strategic projects like the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline.

    One of the largest oil fields discovered in the past 30 years, Kashagan is also one of the most technically challenging fields. It is located in the northern Caspian region,  a hostile environment with more than 70 mile-per-hour winds and flying ice chunks the size of boulders. However, the lure of 30 billion barrels in reserves attracted many Western and other firms into the project. The consortium currently comprises Shell, Eni, ExxonMobil, Total, ConocoPhillips, Inpex and KazMunaiGaz. Kashagan received even more incentive to produce when the Chinese announced they would build a massive pipeline system across Kazakhstan and through China, with Kashagan as the source to fill the bulk of the multi-trunked, 1.2 million barrel-per-day pipeline.

    Kashagan initially was meant to be running by 2007, but the consortium members underestimated the difficulty of developing the field. Costs soared, and the deadline for production was pushed back to 2014. However, around 2007, the Kazakh government began to follow the example of its Russian neighbor and target foreign energy companies, charging higher taxes and collecting fees for alleged violations while trying to increase government shares in energy projects. Kashagan was already problematic; the government’s aggression made the production delays worse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 4:15am

    Reply to #39

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car

    [quote=SailAway][quote=Damnthematrix]
    It takes 60 to 90 barrels of oil to build any kind of car…..  Before you even turn the key on!  You want to replace the current fleet of ~1 billion cars, there goes 75 billion barrels………
    [[/quote]
    Where did you get these data from? I’m interested to read more about this.[/quote]
    Google is your friend……
    About three or four years ago, on the Oil Drum I think……  It takes 22 gallons of oil just to make one tyre!  Then you have to mine at least 20 tons of overburden just to get the mineral ores that go into all the metal bits, the glass, the plastics, the foam in the seats, etc etc etc……
    Most people have no idea what oil is used for.  I was amazed to hear the other day that each and every Australian “eats” 66 barrels of oil a year.  No doubt this holds true for Americans too…!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 11:57am

    Reply to #41

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 198

    guardia wrote: Damnthematrix

    [quote=guardia][quote=Damnthematrix]
    [quote=noodlydoo]
    $0.03/kw electricity production (in existance TODAY). Enough sun shines on the earth in 1 hour to power the planet for 1 year.  http://tinyurl.com/3d3aqsj
    [/quote]
    So then……..  if this is so hot why is Spain in so much strife?
    [/quote]
    Extremely good point! I’m sure they could repay all their debts by selling this cheap energy to Germany… NOT
    Samuel
    [/quote]
    Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France:
    http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France
    The article quotes a 70,000,000 Euro installation cost (about $100,000,000 US) and 26 million Kilowatt hours/year.  Let’s assume it operates maintenance free over it’s quoted 20 year lifespan.  Then our operating costs will be:
    $,100,000,000/520,000,000 KWhr = $0.192/KWhr
    That’s with no maintenance or transmission costs.  Actual costs are probably significantly higher.  There’s also the issue that solar is less reliable than coal and (especially gas) which can provide power when needed as opposed to only when the sun shines.  Forecasting solar array output even a few hours in advance is extremely difficult.  Trust me.  I do it for a living.
    Steve

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 1:08pm

    #44

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    Re: Steveyoung

    Good info Steve

    Again I would reiterate, why not use solar and wind power to produce hydrogen on site. Then you have reliable energy whenever its needed plus fuel to ship whats been prodused off site?

    Yes I know that the conversion is inefficient but the source is “free”.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 4:18pm

    #45

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    steveyoung

    [quote=steveyoung]

    $0.192/KWhr

    [/quote]

    Thanks steveyoung, when I saw the $0.03/kWh number I was thinking “I find that difficult to believe”. 

    [quote=Johnny Oxygen]

    Again I would reiterate, why not use solar and wind power to produce hydrogen on site.

    [/quote]

    The problem is that you loose so much in the conversion. For instance this link says you end up with only 9% of your starting power.  I haven’t checked the numbers but they don’t seem far off.   PV wll probably never be the way to go for large scale installations – solar towers and updraft systems are more efficient.

    Many of these large systems use heat to store the excess for later use instead of going through a chemical reaction such as with batteries/hydrolysis.  The short answer is you don’t do it because if your going to spend the money on a storage system you spend it on the most efficient/cost effective solution.  Just because you can make something work doesn’t mean it’s wise. Smile

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 01, 2011 - 9:37pm

    #46

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    from the Post Carbon Institute

    On May 12th we released Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century?. Written by PCI Fellow J. David Hughes, the detailed report argues that the natural gas industry has propagated dangerously false claims about natural gas production supply, cost and environmental impact. Our report calls into question the prevalent assumption that we have access to over a century of cheap and easy natural gas.
     
    Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century has been requested by local, state and federal agencies, media and concerned citizens worldwide. Since it’s release less than three weeks ago, the report has been downloaded over 11,000 times.
     
    Today we are releasing three supplements to the report that we hope you’ll find of interest and value:
     
    “Agriculture and Natural Gas” by PCI Fellow Michael Bomford
    http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=541cd93520&e=b27f59eaf2

     
    “Problems and Opportunities with Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel” by PCI Adviser Richard Gilbert and PCI Fellow Anthony Perl
    http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=a551a61a91&e=b27f59eaf2

     
    “Public Health Concerns of Shale Gas Production” by PCI Fellows Brian Schwartz, MD, and Cindy Parker, MD.
    http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=faace9aa1e&e=b27f59eaf2

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 12:56am

    Reply to #41

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Launch of biggest solar project in France to date

    [quote=steveyoung]Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France: http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France[/quote]
     

    26 million KW.h/year is 0.005% of France’s electricity generation of 542 TW.h in 2009. (BP 2010), so another 20,845 of them and they could shut all their nuclear plants down.

    Of course that would cost 1.46 trillion Euros and cover an area of……
     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 3:19am

    Reply to #2
    David Phillips

    David Phillips

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 29 2009

    Posts: 111

    guardia

    Samuel,Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions about Canada.  I have been planning this move for my family for years and I want to be aware of as many hazards as possible.
    I have not been able to figure out exactly what you meant by “but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses…”.  Do you mean that I would not be able to move back to the US from Canada if the US economy collapses and Canada’s didn’t?  Does that circumstance create some sort of financial trap?
    phillipsd

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 7:16am

    Reply to #41

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    PV and cloud forecasting

    [quote=steveyoung]Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France:
    http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France
    The article quotes a 70,000,000 Euro installation cost (about $100,000,000 US) and 26 million Kilowatt hours/year.  Let’s assume it operates maintenance free over it’s quoted 20 year lifespan.  Then our operating costs will be:
    $,100,000,000/520,000,000 KWhr = $0.192/KWhr
    [/quote]
    Thanks! But let’s remember that noodlydoo was talking about concentrated solar… Still, I doubt very much we would gain anything by concentrating the light all in one place, then distribute it all over the place over the grid versus simply placing all those panels right where we need the electricity in the first place.
    [quote]
    That’s with no maintenance or transmission costs.  Actual costs are probably significantly higher.  There’s also the issue that solar is less reliable than coal and (especially gas) which can provide power when needed as opposed to only when the sun shines.  Forecasting solar array output even a few hours in advance is extremely difficult.  Trust me.  I do it for a living.
    [/quote]
    Interesting, do you use computer vision to forecast cloud formations and such?
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 7:28am

    Reply to #2

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: Canada and Dutch Disease

    [quote=phillipsd]Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions about Canada.  I have been planning this move for my family for years and I want to be aware of as many hazards as possible.
    I have not been able to figure out exactly what you meant by “but you wouldn’t be able to go the other way if America collapses…”.  Do you mean that I would not be able to move back to the US from Canada if the US economy collapses and Canada’s didn’t?  Does that circumstance create some sort of financial trap?
    [/quote]
    No, as a citizen you can always go back to America, that’s the point. Let’s consider today’s Mexico and America, for example. American citizens can go visit Mexico anytime they want, without any visa whatsoever. But Mexicans need to apply for a visa before entering America, even as a simple tourist (for Mexicans who still believe America’s the place to go anyway). It’s like that all over the world. Between countries of similar standards of life like Canada, America, and Japan, no one needs a visa to visit anywhere they want. But for countries whose standards of living are lower than America, citizens need to a visa to enter America.
    So, imagine America blowing up, and you did not go to Canada: Too late. Unless America decides to invade Canada, no chance of getting anywhere close the border. But if you were in Canada, and it blows up instead, then you can always go back to America as a citizen.
    But then again, Canada and America are so close physically and economically, I’m not so sure it will make any difference… America has problems controlling its Mexican border, imagine Canada, whose population is 10 times smaller than America, controlling its border. Eeesh, not a pretty picture
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 1:28pm

    Reply to #41

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 198

    guardia wrote:steveyoung

    [quote=guardia]
    [quote=steveyoung]
    Here’s an example of the economics of photovoltaics in an ideal location in southeastern France:
    http://www.solarworld4u.com/alg_artikel.asp?Bericht=763&Title=Enfinity-completes-2-solar-installations-in-France
    The article quotes a 70,000,000 Euro installation cost (about $100,000,000 US) and 26 million Kilowatt hours/year.  Let’s assume it operates maintenance free over it’s quoted 20 year lifespan.  Then our operating costs will be:
    $,100,000,000/520,000,000 KWhr = $0.192/KWhr
    [/quote]
    Thanks! But let’s remember that noodlydoo was talking about concentrated solar… Still, I doubt very much we would gain anything by concentrating the light all in one place, then distribute it all over the place over the grid versus simply placing all those panels right where we need the electricity in the first place.
    [quote]
    That’s with no maintenance or transmission costs.  Actual costs are probably significantly higher.  There’s also the issue that solar is less reliable than coal and (especially gas) which can provide power when needed as opposed to only when the sun shines.  Forecasting solar array output even a few hours in advance is extremely difficult.  Trust me.  I do it for a living.
    [/quote]
    Interesting, do you use computer vision to forecast cloud formations and such?
    Samuel
    [/quote]
    Can anyone find numbers on concentrating solar?  They do have the advantage of being able to store heat for overnight or cloudy period generation as well.  The linked Wikipedia article in Rhare’s post (#94) quotes an NREL estimate of about $.055/Kw hr by 2020, but I bet that would increase if the price of oil and raw materials went way up.  Of course costs in cloudier and cooler climates would be significantly higher.  I don’t know which would be better, producing cheaply in the desert and sending the electricity long distance or producing it less cheaply nearby.  In either case, there’s a huge investment required to make a dent in total energy consumption in the time frame required to replace oil – power towers, transmission, electric cars, etc.
    As for forecasting, we use Numerical Weather Prediction models similar to those used by the National Weather Service.  We then use a customized statistical package to remove as many of the model systematic errors as possible.
    Steve

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 3:49pm

    #47

    RNcarl

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 13 2008

    Posts: 179

    The answer is...

    Well,

    Concerning PV, and solar heating – (for both domestic hot water and home heating), I still contend that “local” is the way to go. Meaning, I contend that we already have most if not all of the “grid” that we need. We also already have enough computing power to interface the idea.

    1. EVERY home currently being build should be REQUIRED to have a solar domestic hot water system installed along with a alternative heating source (gas/electric/oil) as back up. That would immediately lower the price of said units to the point where they would be compatible with current systems and plumbers would no longer be able to charge outrageous prices to install them.  Then, when the unit price declines to the point existing folks can afford them, the units would be replaced in short order. I know, I know, the detractors would say, “what happens on cloudy days, night time… blah, blah, blah. The system will only account for 20-30% of the need.” OK there is an immediate 20% savings. 

    2. PV panels. Same thing. I cannot speak to how large of a system would be needed for each house but lets say the current cost of $20K per home would be needed. They would be tied back into the grid. Again, lets say this time we would be looking at a 10% decrease in “conventional” electric use. In households where folks are not home during the day, the excess electric would be returned to the grid where it would be used commercially and the homeowner gets a break on their bill.

    I really should “do the math” on this one but I am sure that some Poindexter somewhere has already done it… I just need to find it.

    See I think we should be looking bigger by providing a local solution. It makes no sense to send electricity hundreds of miles from where it is made to where it is used. That ability should be used to send excess capacity to areas that need it. Or, follow the sun if you will.

    I realize that there is NO political will to make the idea happen. There is also no commercial will do do it either.

    If we would have listened to Jimmy Carter in the ’70s this conversation would not be happening.

    C.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 7:08pm

    #48

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    Required is not the way.....

    [quote=RNcarl]

    EVERY home currently being build should be REQUIRED

    ….

    I realize that there is NO political will to make the idea happen. There is also no commercial will do do it either.

    If we would have listened to Jimmy Carter in the ’70s this conversation would not be happening.

    [/quote]

    The REQUIRED part is an issue.  We already have politicians through their “requirements” selecting which companies and technologies will be the winners.  What happens when they are wrong?  What if PV and currently available DHW systems are not the best solution?  What if smaller solar towers to heat water for a neighbourhood would be better?  What about other technologies? What if it’s still cheaper and better to generate the power a long ways off and ship it?  You are making an assumption that local is better?  My guess is yes, but it’s not a sure thing.

    Instead what we need to do is stop subsidizing anything, including oil, gas, nuclear,….  That includes the hidden subsidy of free money (inflation is not only a hidden tax).  Then technologies would compete on a level playing field and I believe we would have a much better situation.

    We only have to look at the ethanol debacle for a good example of this in practice.  The PV solution is also massively subsidized, so what other start-ups with great ideas have been squashed by the politicians of the world promoting their political contributors?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 8:19pm

    Reply to #48
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 356

    Leadership

    A true leader could lead the country in the right direction without having to require anything. Alas, we have no leaders at the top, only self interested parasites.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 8:54pm

    Reply to #48

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    Compromised Or Obstructed

    [quote=MarkM]A true leader could lead the country in the right direction without having to require anything. Alas, we have no leaders at the top, only self interested parasites.
    [/quote]
    Any leader would quickly be compromised in one way or another. And if not compromised, then obstructed by all means by vested interests.
    I will probably vote for Ron Paul again. And again, it’s likely we won’t see him win.
    Poet

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 9:44pm

    #49

    Johnny Oxygen

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 09 2009

    Posts: 454

    Artilcles of Confederation

    You know if we did go back to the Artilcles of Confederation at least we could stop the endless wars. Undecided

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 10:24pm

    #50

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    the Arab Spring

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF01Ak01.html

    Humpty Obumpty and the Arab Spring
    By Spengler

    I’ve been warning for months that Egypt, Syria, Tunisia and other Arab oil-importing countries face a total economic meltdown (see Food and failed Arab states, Feb 2, and The hunger to come in Egypt, May 10). Now the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has confirmed my warnings.

    The leaders of the industrial nations waited until last weekend’s Group of Eight (G-8) summit to respond, and at the initiative of United States President Barack Obama proposed what sounds like a massive aid program but probably consists mainly of refurbishing old programs.

    The egg has splattered, and all of Obumpty’s horses and men can’t mend it. Even the G-8’s announcement was fumbled; Canada’s Prime Minister John Harper refused to commit new money, a dissonant note that routine diplomatic preparation would have pre-empted.

    The numbers thrown out by the IMF are stupefying. “In the current baseline scenario,” wrote the IMF on May 27, “the external financing needs of the region’s oil importers is projected to exceed $160 billion during 2011-13.” That’s almost three years’ worth of Egypt’s total annual imports as of 2010. As of 2010, the combined current account deficit (that is, external financing needs) of Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia was about $15 billion a year.

    What the IMF says, in effect, is that the oil-poor Arab economies – especially Egypt – are not only broke, but dysfunctional, incapable of earning more than a small fraction of their import bill. The disappearance of tourism is an important part of the problem, but shortages of fuel and other essentials have had cascading effects throughout these economies.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Jun 02, 2011 - 11:16pm

    Reply to #47

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    RNcarl wrote:Concerning PV,

    [quote=RNcarl]Concerning PV, and solar heating – (for both domestic hot water and home heating), I still contend that “local” is the way to go. Meaning, I contend that we already have most if not all of the “grid” that we need. We also already have enough computing power to interface the idea.1. EVERY home currently being build should be REQUIRED to have a solar domestic hot water system installed along with a alternative heating source (gas/electric/oil) as back up. That would immediately lower the price of said units to the point where they would be compatible with current systems and plumbers would no longer be able to charge outrageous prices to install them.  Then, when the unit price declines to the point existing folks can afford them, the units would be replaced in short order. I know, I know, the detractors would say, “what happens on cloudy days, night time… blah, blah, blah. The system will only account for 20-30% of the need.” OK there is an immediate 20% savings. 
    2. PV panels. Same thing. I cannot speak to how large of a system would be needed for each house but lets say the current cost of $20K per home would be needed. They would be tied back into the grid. Again, lets say this time we would be looking at a 10% decrease in “conventional” electric use. In households where folks are not home during the day, the excess electric would be returned to the grid where it would be used commercially and the homeowner gets a break on their bill.[/quote]
    I totally concur with Carl………  It should also be required that all new buildings be designed and built so as to maximise the efficiency of all such installations.  Not only is “doing the right thing” cheap to do in the first instance, it saves you dough, for as long as the technology keeps working.
    Our last power bill was….  drum roll…..  $535 in CREDIT!  Said bill says we currently consume just 2.2kWh/day, in WINTER!  As I sit here at my 25W laptop, it’s 8:30 am and maybe 8C outside, whilst it’s a balmy 20C inside.  The sun’s shining through every single window on the N side of our (S hemisphere) house, reheating the place in readiness for tonight’s cold temperature….
    How sustainability sucks…..
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 6:00am

    #51

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    A carrot is better than a stick!

    [quote=Damnthematrix]

    I totally concur with Carl………  It should also be required that all new buildings be designed and built so as to maximise the efficiency of all such installations.  Not only is “doing the right thing” cheap to do in the first instance, it saves you dough, for as long as the technology keeps working.

    [/quote]

    Of course you do, it’s the progressive way!   It’s quite the arrogant attitude don’t you think?  Instead of working to remove the government distortion field and help others to reach the same conclusion about our current path as those of us her at CM.com have come to realize, it much better to just use the government to force people to our way of thinking? Sorry, not for me.  It also may be highly counter productive since you may be squashing really good ideas in forcing people down a centrally planned path.

    At any rate, I see you have quite the welfare for the rich going on in Australia in the form of PV subsidies.  Don’t misunderstand, I’m suckling from the government forced teat just as much, I just don’t think it’s the right way to make the change.  But I do have to thank everyone for paying for my 60 kWh/day habit. Tongue outNow for the real kicker, because people like you thought “requiring” the utility to meet some “green” objectives,  I’m about 3x better off consuming even more power (using all that I generate) than I am providing it back to the grid.  Yep, I’m incentivised to consume more!  Gotta love those greenies and their use of government force!

    One final thought – you’d better be careful advocating the government forcing people to behave the way you think they should, one of these days you may find yourself on the otherside being forced to do something against your will.

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 6:43am

    Reply to #41

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Solar power and cloud forecasting

    [quote=steveyoung]Can anyone find numbers on concentrating solar?  They do have the advantage of being able to store heat for overnight or cloudy period generation as well.  The linked Wikipedia article in Rhare’s post (#94) quotes an NREL estimate of about $.055/Kw hr by 2020, but I bet that would increase if the price of oil and raw materials went way up.  Of course costs in cloudier and cooler climates would be significantly higher.  I don’t know which would be better, producing cheaply in the desert and sending the electricity long distance or producing it less cheaply nearby.  In either case, there’s a huge investment required to make a dent in total energy consumption in the time frame required to replace oil – power towers, transmission, electric cars, etc.
    As for forecasting, we use Numerical Weather Prediction models similar to those used by the National Weather Service.  We then use a customized statistical package to remove as many of the model systematic errors as possible.
    [/quote]
    I can’t add much about the cost, but I do feel a lot more comfortable with simple solar panels, than anything that requires large installations..
    About forecasting, I guess for a few hours in advance we need to go full NWP, but for < 1 hour, I think images could give us enough information… It may become one of my future research topic, who knows
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 6:59am

    #52

    rhare

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 29 2009

    Posts: 397

    Large does not necessarily imply complex

    [quote=guadia]

    I can’t add much about the cost, but I do feel a lot more comfortable with simple solar panels, than anything that requires large installations..

    [/quote]

    Large does not necessarily imply more complexity.  For instance a solar power tower may be simpler and less problematic that say a field of a million solar panels and the inverters, cleaning requirements, etc.  You really have to look at the cost/energy provided (kWh).  The less complex solution should be the cheaper solution in the long run.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 8:00am

    #53

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    PV in Australia

    Solar PV’s survival test

    Giles Parkinson

    The Australian solar industry couldn’t quite believe the take-up of solar power in 2010. A combination of plunging module prices, the gain in the Australian dollar, and generous government incentives – and the prospect that these would soon end – resulted in 383MW of solar photovoltaic power being installed in the country in 2010.

    This was a near five-fold increase from the previous year. Most analysts thought it would be difficult to better that number in 2011, but as the various state and territory governments are finding, to their surprise, demand is still increasing. It’s estimated that more than 350MW of rooftop PV has already been installed in the first five months of the year. Australia is now one of the world’s top 10 rooftop PV markets. The question is – what happens next?

    Muriel Watt, chair of the Australian PV Association, last night presented some interesting predictions at the release of the APVA annual report. If the build-out continues at around the current rate, this would mean there would be more than 4.5GW of solar PV installed in the country by 2020 – the equivalent of the Latrobe Valley brown coal generators, and producing just as much – at least when the sun shines and when the load is at, or near, its peak.

    The chances are, though, that this is a conservative estimate, particularly with module costs expected to fall further, retail electricity prices expected to rise, and with separate predictions that suggest large-scale solar PV utilities could provide nearly that much capacity on their own once they become cost-competitive with wind.

    The costs of rooftop solar PV were little moved for nearly two decades, but the introduction of incentives in European countries and elsewhere, the rising costs of fossil fuels, and the emerging dominance of Chinese manufacturers has caused a dramatic slump in costs in the last few years.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 8:05am

    Reply to #51

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    A carrot is better than a stick! you betcha!

    [quote=rhare]At any rate, I see you have quite the welfare for the rich going on in Australia in the form of PV subsidies.  Don’t misunderstand, I’m suckling from the government forced teat just as much, I just don’t think it’s the right way to make the change. But I do have to thank everyone for paying for my 60 kWh/day habit. Now for the real kicker, because people like you thought “requiring” the utility to meet some “green” objectives,  I’m about 3x better off consuming even more power (using all that I generate) than I am providing it back to the grid.  Yep, I’m incentivised to consume more!  Gotta love those greenies and their use of government force![/quote]
    The subsidies are working so well here (see my latest post about this just below) that they will almost certainly be withdrawn TWO YEARS ahead of schedule.  The current subsidy is being reduced by 40% as of the end of this month instead of the scheduled 20…….  YOU work it out.
    [quote=rhare]One final thought – you’d better be careful advocating the government forcing people to behave the way you think they should, one of these days you may find yourself on the otherside being forced to do something against your will.[/quote]
    I find myself in this situation all the time.  So what’s new?
    Mike

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 9:12pm

    #54
    tictac1

    tictac1

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 25 2009

    Posts: 124

    I like damnthematrix' ideas

    I like damnthematrix’ ideas usually, but I gotta balk at this one.  Forcing people to install solar paid for by extortion money?  I can’t support any “help” that comes at gunpoint.  The end does not justify the means.

    How about survival of the fittest?  Those that prepare, survive and thrive.  Those that don’t, well, things will just work themselves out naturally.  Seems harsh, but not as harsh as allowing the stupor of those around us drag us down with them.

    Matrix, i really liked the your “countries as farms” video, been emailing it out to friends and relatives.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 03, 2011 - 10:08pm

    Reply to #54

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    "help" that comes at gunpoint.

    [quote=tictac1]I like damnthematrix’ ideas usually, but I gotta balk at this one.  Forcing people to install solar paid for by extortion money?  I can’t support any “help” that comes at gunpoint.  [/quote]
    Gunpoint?  Extortion money?  Let’s get real here……  Don’t you have building codes?  Are they enforced “at gunpoint”?
    [quote=tictac1]The end does not justify the means.[/quote]
    Well then, let’s agree to disagree.  IMHO, houses built today are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too big.  Just think about how much dough everyone would save, how much less debt would be around, if people built houses half the size they currently have?  Here, we put solar on our roof INSTEAD OF having a second bathroom and toilet.  Period.  This house is ~1500 sq ft, and whilst I love it, now I wish I’d built it smaller…  I call it PRIORITIES.  NOBODY needs two bathrooms.  A lot of people on this Earth have NO bathrooms at all!!
    [quote=tictac1]How about survival of the fittest?  Those that prepare, survive and thrive.  Those that don’t, well, things will just work themselves out naturally.  Seems harsh, but not as harsh as allowing the stupor of those around us drag us down with them.[/quote]
    Look, I agree loads of people won’t make it, that’s what happens in overshoot.  But it doesn’t mean we should continue building crap housing.  Like those blown away by your tornadoes.  We had a 200PMH hurricane (and hurricanes last a lot longer than tornadoes) here the other months, and yes a few houses were destroyed, but most were not, and NOBODY died!  NOBODY!  That’s what happens when you have proper building codes.  WHY is anyone allowed to build a house in Tornado Alley that can’t withstand the forces of those terrible things?  THAT cost could also be absorbed into building smaller places too.  Build smaller but much stronger…..  it can be done.
    [quote=tictac1]Matrix, i really liked the your “countries as farms” video, been emailing it out to friends and relatives.[/quote]
    You’re welcome…..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 04, 2011 - 10:35am

    #55

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    In The World After Abundance

    In The World After Abundance

    by John Michael Greer

    Over the past month or so the essays on this blog have veered away from the details of appropriate tech into a discussion of some of the reasons why this kind of tech is, in fact, appropriate as a response to the predicament of industrial society. That was a necessary diversion, since a great many of the narratives that cluster around that crisis just now tend to evade the necessity of change on the level of individual lifestyles. The roots of that evasion had to be explored in order to show that change on that level is exactly what can’t be avoided by any serious response to the crisis of our time.

    Still, if it’s going to do any good, that awareness has to be paired with something more than a vague sense that action is necessary. Talk, as Zen masters are fond of saying, does not boil the rice; in the rather more formal language of the traditions of Western esotericism where I received a good deal of my training, the planes of being are discrete and not continuous, which means in practice that even the clearest sense of how we collectively backed ourselves into the present mess isn’t going to bring in food from the garden, keep warmth from leaking out of the house on a cold winter night, or provide a modest amount of electricity for those bits of modern or not-quite-modern technology that will still make sense, and still yield benefits, in the world after abundance.

    That last phrase is the crucial one. In the future ahead of us, the extravagant habits of the recent past and the present will no longer be an option. Those habits include most of what people in the industrial world nowadays like to consider the basic amenities of a normal lifestyle, or even the necessities of life. An unwillingness to take a hard look at the assumptions underlying our current notion of what a normal lifestyle comprises has driven a certain amount of wishful thinking, and roughly the same amount of unnecessary dread, among those who have begun to grapple with the challenges ahead of us. <MORE>

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 11, 2011 - 9:23pm

    #56
    plato1965

    plato1965

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 18 2009

    Posts: 86

    Opec fail.

    Good article – (posting here instead of Daily Digest.)

     

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/8570394/Opecs-Vienna-summit-meant-nothing-for-long-term-oil-price-trends.html

    Saudi’s current “break-even” oil price, at which its domestic budget balances, is now $85/barrel, according to the Washington-based Institute of International Finance, up from $68/barrel in 2010.

    As recently as 2003, Saudi break-even was only $30/barrel. The IIF estimates break-even prices for Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait, while having risen less than in Saudi, have also more than doubled over the same period. Demographic pressures mean the Saudi figure will spiral to $110 by 2015, says the IIF.

     

     I assume the KSA “break-even” price is related to two factors, declining EROEI, and increased (subsidised) domestic use..

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 13, 2011 - 8:09pm

    #57

    Ready

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 30 2008

    Posts: 150

    KSA has more production to tap?

    Curious to see how this plays out:

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/161421/20110612/saudi-arabia-oil-opec.htm

    [quote]

    June 12, 2011 12:41 PM EDT

    Oil prices fell on Friday as Saudi Arabia reportedly followed through on its threat to defy OPEC and unilaterally increase oil production.

    Saudi newspaper al-Hayat said Saudi Arabia will raise oil production to 10 million barrels per day in July. 

    [/quote]

    [quote]

    There are a number of reasons Saudi Arabia wants to produce more, including making more money, supporting Western economies, and preventing the West from turning to oil alternatives.   

    Oil production hawks like Iran, meanwhile, don’t want more production because they’re already producing near capacity.  Therefore, they are incentivized to maximized oil prices at the current global production level.

    So where will oil prices go from here?

    It’s reasonable to assume it will fall in Saudi Arabia’s preferred range of $75 to $85 per barrel in the short-term.

    Most other producers will keep production constant at their maximum capacity, which gives Saudi Arabia control over prices as the incremental and discretionary producer.  It will likely take advantage of this position and adjust their production until prices drift to their desired level.

    [/quote]
    If crude does in fact head to $80, I’ll have to rethink my position a tad. I find it hard to believe they have that level of control.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2011 - 1:11pm

    Reply to #57

    guardia

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 26 2009

    Posts: 38

    Re: KSA has more production to tap?

    [quote=Ready]If crude does in fact head to $80, I’ll have to rethink my position a tad. I find it hard to believe they have that level of control.
    [/quote]
    Quite right, it’s either going over $100 or below $20 …. whoops
    Samuel

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 14, 2011 - 7:14pm

    #58
    ewilkerson

    ewilkerson

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 18 2010

    Posts: 213

    But can you really trust the

    But can you really trust the Saudis?  They never seem to come up with the extra production for long, and this new oil is sauer that they want to bring online offshore.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 22, 2011 - 12:32pm

    #59

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    Will economic collapse save us from climate catastrophe?

    http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-17/deus-ex-machina-will-economic-collapse-save-us-climate-catastrophe 

    Deus ex Machina: Will economic collapse save us from climate catastrophe?

    by Dan Allen

    “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen. …We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” – Steven Chu, US Secretary of Energy, http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/02/04/203650/chu-were-looking-at-a-scenario-where-theres-no-more-agriculture-in-california-part-2/

    “[W]ith 6% per year decrease of fossil fuel CO2 emissions [beginning in 2012]…[g]lobal temperature relative to the 1880-1920 mean would barely exceed 1°C and would remain above 1°C for only about 3 decades. …[Only] this scenario provides the prospect that young people, future generations, and other life on the planet would have a chance of residing in a world similar to the one in which civilization developed.” – James Hansen, http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

    “A reduction in [oil] supply of only a few percentages could create difficulties throughout the entire system. Further reductions could lead to a complete failure of critical systems.” – Rick Munroe, http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-13/review-bundeswehr-report-peak-oil-section-22-tipping-point-nov-2010

    Summary: A new paper by NASA’s James Hansen suggests that immediate and drastic declines (ca. 6% annual) in industrial CO2 emissions are required to avoid catastrophic climatic destabilization. As no realistic political solution exists for such immediate CO2 reduction, prospects for a livable future have now become dependent on a single back-breaking option: rapid global economic collapse. And in `Deus ex machina’ style, we may get it just in time…

     

    Paper here:         http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 22, 2011 - 3:00pm

    #60

    Mary Aceves

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 23 2010

    Posts: 132

    powerful writing

    Hats off to Dan Allen.  Very readable, concise writing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 22, 2011 - 3:45pm

    #61

    debu

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 16 2009

    Posts: 37

    Which Cliff?

    Indeed, the Dan Allen article in the Energy Bulletin was very good, if sobering. 

    It seems that in every direction there is a cliff awaiting us.  That we will eventually go over one of them is inevitable but which one and when is unknowable.

    And so, we are left to prepare best we can and get on with our lives in the meantime.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jul 17, 2011 - 5:24am

    #62

    Damnthematrix

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 09 2008

    Posts: 1132

    energy shortages everywhere..

    from ASPO-USA’s Peak Oil Review,
    Gasoline shortages developed across the UAE last week as Emirates National Oil Company, a Dubai-based refiner, shut down gas stations in Sharjah after running short of supplies. Much of the problem is due to government policies that require gasoline to be retailed at well below market prices across the region. Demand for oil products by Middle Eastern oil exporters has been increasing by 5 percent a year, outrunning local refining capacity and forcing governments to import large amounts of oil products at world prices. While national oil companies may be able to extract oil at a marginal cost of a few dollars a barrel, imported gasoline and diesel is going to run closer to $100. Building more refining capacity will be very expensive; last week Kuwait approved a new refinery that will cost $14 billion.
    The last few weeks have seen what appears to be a substantial increase in electricity and liquid fuels shortages across many parts of the world. The common theme behind these shortages is higher prices for liquid fuels and hot, dry weather which is reducing hydro generated power and increasing the demand for air conditioning. Brent oil prices that have now been above $100 a barrel for the last six months are placing a strain on many poorer nations that can no longer afford to import enough oil to run power stations.
    Theft of electrical power is endemic in much of the underdeveloped world leaving many power companies without the revenue to pay for increasingly expensive fuel. In many countries, a paradox is developing in which widespread, lengthy blackouts are in some cases saving fuel for power stations, but at the same time increasing the demand for diesel fuel to keep essential utilities, factories and computerized offices running. Last week several new or worsening situations were reported. In Mongolia, which until recently had only a diesel crisis due to the ban on exports by its only neighbors, Russia and China, is now facing a gasoline crisis. Power cuts in Tanzania, where 70 percent of the power comes from hydro, are up to 12 hours a day for an indefinite period. Japan has now issued an official order that large power users in the service areas of the Tokyo and Tohoku power companies must cut their usage by 15 percent.
    Japanese car manufactures are stopping production on Thursday and Friday. Nissan says it will shift production to the weekend when more power is available Jordan’s electric company which was dependent on cheap natural gas from Egypt ran into troubles when the pipeline was blown up for the third time and the company was forced to turn to expensive imported oil. Botswana and Argentina in the southern hemisphere are facing shortages of electricity and natural gas respectively as temperatures fall. Nigeria is dealing with growing kerosene shortages and longer blackouts. In Nigeria the electric company is increasing prices to cope with revenue shortfalls from lower production. Energy shortages in Pakistan continue without end. There are near-daily protests against the blackouts, and a CNG shortage has cut bus service in many regions.
    Gasoline is in short supply. Last week, Tehran, in an effort to supplant US influence in Pakistan, offered to sell the country electricity. The offer came at the same time Iran’s electric company reported that it was about to close 15 thermal power plants because of a fuel shortage. While some of these shortages will be short-lived, others are systemic stemming from the rising energy consumption by a growing world running into the limits to growth

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments