Peak Oil

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:51 am

Now to open up a whole new can of worms. I just finished watching a doco called 'Collapse' if you get a chance to see it - Do.

The thing with our civilization, you see, is that it's all oil dependent. All of it. There is barely anything in our world that does not require oil to make, to ship, or to consume. It's not just cars, trucks or planes that require oil. Just about everything these days is produced through some sort of machine, and guess what machines require to run - You guessed it, oil.

The most startling thing is really, the food. According to a study done by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in the United States - 3 calories of energy are required to produce 1 calorie of edible food. [¹] Where is the root of that energy coming from? You guessed it, oil.

Our whole way of life is completely dependent upon fossil fuels.

The next part after accepting this fact, is really:

Well, how long do we have left? Optimistic estimates say peak oil will happen around 2020 [²]. But given the way OPEC just loves to cook the books, peak oil could already be upon us. The issue in this case is that we have no reliable data of just how much oil is left, and that oil producing nations are very secretive about their reserves.

Here's a pretty important quote from Journalist George Monbiot

f you ask, the government always produces the same response: "Global oil resources are adequate for the foreseeable future." It knows this, it says, because of the assessments made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World Energy Outlook reports. In the 2007 report, the IEA does appear to support the government's view. "World oil resources," it states, "are judged to be sufficient to meet the projected growth in demand to 2030," though it says nothing about what happens at that point, or whether they will continue to be sufficient after 2030. But this, as far as Whitehall is concerned, is the end of the matter. Like most of the rich world's governments, the UK treats the IEA's projections as gospel. Earlier this year, I submitted a freedom of information request to the UK's department for business, asking what contingency plans the government has made for global supplies of oil peaking by 2020. The answer was as follows: "The government does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude-oil supplies peaking between now and 2020."

So the IEA had better be right. In the report on peak oil commissioned by the US department of energy, the oil analyst Robert L Hirsch concluded that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political costs" of world oil supplies peaking "will be unprecedented". He went on to explain what "timely mitigation" meant. Even a worldwide emergency response "10 years before world oil peaking", he wrote, would leave "a liquid-fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked". To avoid global economic collapse, we need to begin "a mitigation crash programme 20 years before peaking". If Hirsch is right, and if oil supplies peak before 2028, we're in deep doodah.

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA radically changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked people who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those who warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained that none of this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon resources around the world are abundant and will easily fuel the world through its transition to a sustainable energy future." In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline in output from the world's existing oilfields of 3.7% a year. This, it said, presented a short-term challenge, with the possibility of a temporary supply crunch in 2015, but with sufficient investment any shortfall could be covered. But the new report, published last month, carried a very different message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%, which means a much greater gap to fill.

More importantly, in the 2008 report the IEA suggests for the first time that world petroleum supplies might hit the buffers. "Although global oil production in total is not expected to peak before 2030, production of conventional oil ... is projected to level off towards the end of the projection period." These bland words reveal a major shift. Never before has one of the IEA's energy outlooks forecast the peaking or plateauing of the world's conventional oil production (which is what we mean when we talk about peak oil).

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... energy-iea


The problem is really that nobody is steering the ship. As I have said in another thread:

There seem to be parallels between the finite nature of our lifespans and the finite nature of the resources on planet earth. In both cases we know they're going to run out, but in both cases we pretend as though they won't.


Indeed, there is no contingency plan for when oil finally runs out.

So what happens when oil does run out? Well in the long run there's not gonna be enough food to go around for 6 - 9 billion human beings, economies across the world will collapse, there will be rioting, starvation, and deprivation. Of course it begins more gradually, food prices going up, a few global recessions and spiking oil prices as supply starts to outstrip demand, but eventually the big one will come.

Funnily enough, all those nations which are primarily agrarian will be the one's who will weather the storm best. Those with a knowledge of organic farming and gardening, carpentry and such likes will reap the obvious benefits of independence.

Now I am not putting forth a very strong argument, it might seem, this is mostly because I don't really have the patience to thresh out a well cited piece right now, I'd just like to get the ball rolling.

metta
Jack
Last edited by BlackBird on Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby pink_trike » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:02 am

Good summary. Peak oil is a very interesting lens...everything looks quite different through it. The wars that aren't officially wars are more interesting. The manipulations of the market are more interesting. Homeland security measures are more interesting. Climate change takes on a greatly expanded meaning. The exploding population comes more sharply into focus. This is the Age of Uncertainty - we've built a big box culture and its infrastructures on a fragmented delusion of solidity and stability, and on finite resources.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference
between the way nature works and the way people think" - Gregory Bateson

"The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is
evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to
endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according
to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence,
what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that
is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life
has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature,
over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the
creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally
healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed
a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems
to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the
control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught
up in it."

- David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980

Though not entirely accurate, imo, this wikipedia article gives an overview of peak oil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
Attachments
600px-Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg.png
A bell-shaped production curve, as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
600px-Hubbert_peak_oil_plot.svg.png (21.58 KiB) Viewed 978 times
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:35 am

BlackBird wrote:Indeed, there is no contingency plan for when oil finally runs out.


Actually there is, it's called natural gas.

Here in the US we have several hundred years worth of gas in the ground. There's a huge glut of the stuff and has been pushing natural gas prices down. It's a good thing too, since we'll probably need that extra time to develop new technologies that will eventually allow us wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

Also, I've seen conversion kits for cars to switch from gasoline to natural gas for under $100. While that may not be typical for every make and model, it certainly wouldn't be too expensive to switch everyone's vehicles over.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Eating Fossil Fuels

Postby pink_trike » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:47 am

Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:03 am

As pink_trike says, Peak Oil compounds the problems of Climate Change.
The solutions, fortunately or not, overlap too: we need to immediately reduce fossil fuel use by every means possible, both to make the post-oil collapse as slow and gentle as possible and to reduce CO2 buildup.
That helps give us time to fill the energy gap, as quickly as possible, with renewables.
But we in the Western world will also have to permanently and drastically reduce consumption - look up 'environmental footprint'.
And yes, there will be massive dislocation as we reinvent civilisation-as-we-know-it. I'm still optimistic that we are (just!) smart enough to avert disaster.

'Interesting times' indeed!

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:04 am

I'm sorry Poto, but an estimated several hundred year supply of natural gas (at current demand, I assume) is not a well thought out contingency to the global oil crisis. If you look here you'll see there is actually less natural gas reserves in the world than there is oil.

(Natural gas column BBOE)

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Moggalana » Wed Dec 16, 2009 8:56 am

If we are lucky, scientists will get fusion power to work in a couple of decades. That would probably solve our energy problem for now...
Let it come. Let it be. Let it go.
Moggalana
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:31 am
Location: Germany

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Rui Sousa » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:42 am

Electricity seems like an alternative to iol, until we realize most electricity cames from oil, carbon or natural gas. All not renewable and a serious problem in the future.

Portugal and Spain, for example, have been doing serious efforts to reduxe their dependence on fossil fuels, but estimates are the only a third of electricity cames from solar, hidroelectric or eolic source. Spain has the highest percentage of eolic energy in its electricity production: 10%. which seems still a smal part of electrical energy to make much difference.

There are some initatives on way to create an electric grid to power vehicles, Portugal will be one of the first countries to have such grid, but the problem remains if the electricity fueling those cars is originated in coal power stations. I hope new and better ways of generating energy become available in the near future and help us avoid the big problem ahead of us that would be energy shortage worldwide, and the already existing problem of polution associated with fossil fuels.
With Metta
User avatar
Rui Sousa
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:01 pm
Location: Sintra, Portugal

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:47 am

Moggalana wrote:If we are lucky, scientists will get fusion power to work in a couple of decades. That would probably solve our energy problem for now...

We should try everything at once and see what works best, but fusion can't possibly be the solution, probably not even a big part of the solution. It has been promised for the near future for about fifty years and is still in the experimental stage. If the current big experiment (ITER http://www.iter.org/) works, the first commercialisation is still at least twenty years away and large scale use must be at least ten years beyond that. But Peak Oil is due in ten years and CO2 reduction is needed now, so fusion will be too late to be especially significant.
'Clean Coal' has the same problem.
On the other hand, solar is up and running at commercial levels, so is wind, so (although less widespread) is geothermal. More, please!

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:14 pm

BlackBird wrote:I'm sorry Poto, but an estimated several hundred year supply of natural gas (at current demand, I assume) is not a well thought out contingency to the global oil crisis. If you look here you'll see there is actually less natural gas reserves in the world than there is oil.

(Natural gas column BBOE)

metta
Jack


That table only lists conventional reserves. Unconventional reserves are many times that. We have enough gas to last quite a while. 100 years or even an extra 50 years will be a great help in developing new technologies.

Things like bio-fuels from algae have the potential to completely displace oil. We can now with current technology produce enough algae bio-fuel to replace oil. The only problem is it's not cost effective. So, we do have alternatives should oil completely run out, they will just cost more. Food production will not stop, it might get more expensive though. That is a problem, and I do hope we can produce cheaper algae bio-fuel before fossil fuels run out.

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Moggalana wrote:If we are lucky, scientists will get fusion power to work in a couple of decades. That would probably solve our energy problem for now...

We should try everything at once and see what works best, but fusion can't possibly be the solution, probably not even a big part of the solution. It has been promised for the near future for about fifty years and is still in the experimental stage. If the current big experiment (ITER http://www.iter.org/) works, the first commercialisation is still at least twenty years away and large scale use must be at least ten years beyond that. But Peak Oil is due in ten years and CO2 reduction is needed now, so fusion will be too late to be especially significant.
'Clean Coal' has the same problem.
On the other hand, solar is up and running at commercial levels, so is wind, so (although less widespread) is geothermal. More, please!

Kim


Fusion is THE answer. It is the next level technology our civilization NEEDS if we hope to survive or expand into space.

ITER is a turd. It's a good science experiment, but even some of the people working on it have no hopes that it will ever be commercially viable. The late Dr. Bussard's Polywell fusion designs on the other hand has already solved the physics problems and achieved fusion. All that remains are the engineering challenges of building larger and more efficient Polywell fusion reactors. It's possible that we can have commercial Polywell fusion reactors or some variant in less than 10 years.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:20 pm

poto wrote:...The late Dr. Bussard's Polywell fusion designs on the other hand has already solved the physics problems and achieved fusion. All that remains are the engineering challenges of building larger and more efficient Polywell fusion reactors. It's possible that we can have commercial Polywell fusion reactors or some variant in less than 10 years.

You're more positive about it than even its principal scientist, Richard Nebel. Here's what he has said about it (from Wikipedia article):
Following submission of the final WB-7 results in December 2008, Dr Richard Nebel commented that "There's nothing in there [the research] that suggests this will not work," but that "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."
...
In May 2009, Richard Nebel was interviewed in a popular science/futurism blog. He stated: "We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years." (That sounds like they haven't yet gotten more energy out of any of their experimental models than they have pumped into it - standard problem with fusion - Kim) "It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project. [...] So if (emphasis added - Kim) the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020."[36]

What do you know that he doesn't, and how do you know it?

Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:13 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
poto wrote:...The late Dr. Bussard's Polywell fusion designs on the other hand has already solved the physics problems and achieved fusion. All that remains are the engineering challenges of building larger and more efficient Polywell fusion reactors. It's possible that we can have commercial Polywell fusion reactors or some variant in less than 10 years.

You're more positive about it than even its principal scientist, Richard Nebel. Here's what he has said about it (from Wikipedia article):
Following submission of the final WB-7 results in December 2008, Dr Richard Nebel commented that "There's nothing in there [the research] that suggests this will not work," but that "That's a very different statement from saying that it will work."
...
In May 2009, Richard Nebel was interviewed in a popular science/futurism blog. He stated: "We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years." (That sounds like they haven't yet gotten more energy out of any of their experimental models than they have pumped into it - standard problem with fusion - Kim) "It could take longer, but this definitely won't be a 50 year development project. [...] So if (emphasis added - Kim) the concept works we could have a commercial plant operating as early as 2020."[36]

What do you know that he doesn't, and how do you know it?

Kim


I was greatly inspired by the late Dr. Bussard's words on the matter.

If you have the time, you can watch the talk he gave at google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6673788606

Nebel took over after Bussard's death. Fusion technologies have been met with a great deal of skepticism within the scientific community. So, it's logical that any scientist with an established reputation would be making very conservative statements about the project. Nebel has his reputation to protect.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:47 am

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Congressman Roscoe Barlett (Republican - Maryland) wrote:Mr. Speaker, if you go to your computer this evening and do a Google search for peak oil, you will find there a large assortment of articles and comments. Like every issue, you will find a few people who are on the extreme, but there will be a lot of mainstream observations there.

One of the articles that you will find there was written by Matt Savinar. Matt Savinar is not a technical person. He is a lawyer, a good one, and he does what lawyers do. He goes to the sources and builds his case. Matt Savinar could be correct when he said, "Dear Reader, civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon.'' I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to pull up his article and read it. It is really very sobering.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby BlackBird » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:24 am

poto wrote:Stuff


Again, you're missing one of the real issues and that is that any figures that state that there's 50 to 100 years left of 'unconventional' oil, is a very well-done figure (that is to say it has been cooked thoroughly)

There isn't 50 years of 'unconventional' oil, let a lone 100. But there's a very good reason that just about everyone with a stake in oil would like you to believe otherwise.

Please visit the website, it's not propaganda nor is it a conspiracy theory, it's cold solid evidence from a litany of reputable sources - Read it through, then draw your conclusions.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Annapurna » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:39 am

BlackBird wrote:Now to open up a whole new can of worms. I just finished watching a doco called 'Collapse' if you get a chance to see it - Do.

The thing with our civilization, you see, is that it's all oil dependent. All of it. There is barely anything in our world that does not require oil to make, to ship, or to consume. It's not just cars, trucks or planes that require oil. Just about everything these days is produced through some sort of machine, and guess what machines require to run - You guessed it, oil.

The most startling thing is really, the food. According to a study done by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in the United States - 3 calories of energy are required to produce 1 calorie of edible food. [¹] Where is the root of that energy coming from? You guessed it, oil.

Our whole way of life is completely dependent upon fossil fuels.

The next part after accepting this fact, is really:

Well, how long do we have left? Optimistic estimates say peak oil will happen around 2020 [²]. But given the way OPEC just loves to cook the books, peak oil could already be upon us. The issue in this case is that we have no reliable data of just how much oil is left, and that oil producing nations are very secretive about their reserves.

Here's a pretty important quote from Journalist George Monbiot

f you ask, the government always produces the same response: "Global oil resources are adequate for the foreseeable future." It knows this, it says, because of the assessments made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World Energy Outlook reports. In the 2007 report, the IEA does appear to support the government's view. "World oil resources," it states, "are judged to be sufficient to meet the projected growth in demand to 2030," though it says nothing about what happens at that point, or whether they will continue to be sufficient after 2030. But this, as far as Whitehall is concerned, is the end of the matter. Like most of the rich world's governments, the UK treats the IEA's projections as gospel. Earlier this year, I submitted a freedom of information request to the UK's department for business, asking what contingency plans the government has made for global supplies of oil peaking by 2020. The answer was as follows: "The government does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude-oil supplies peaking between now and 2020."

So the IEA had better be right. In the report on peak oil commissioned by the US department of energy, the oil analyst Robert L Hirsch concluded that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political costs" of world oil supplies peaking "will be unprecedented". He went on to explain what "timely mitigation" meant. Even a worldwide emergency response "10 years before world oil peaking", he wrote, would leave "a liquid-fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked". To avoid global economic collapse, we need to begin "a mitigation crash programme 20 years before peaking". If Hirsch is right, and if oil supplies peak before 2028, we're in deep doodah.

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA radically changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked people who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those who warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained that none of this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon resources around the world are abundant and will easily fuel the world through its transition to a sustainable energy future." In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline in output from the world's existing oilfields of 3.7% a year. This, it said, presented a short-term challenge, with the possibility of a temporary supply crunch in 2015, but with sufficient investment any shortfall could be covered. But the new report, published last month, carried a very different message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%, which means a much greater gap to fill.

More importantly, in the 2008 report the IEA suggests for the first time that world petroleum supplies might hit the buffers. "Although global oil production in total is not expected to peak before 2030, production of conventional oil ... is projected to level off towards the end of the projection period." These bland words reveal a major shift. Never before has one of the IEA's energy outlooks forecast the peaking or plateauing of the world's conventional oil production (which is what we mean when we talk about peak oil).

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... energy-iea


The problem is really that nobody is steering the ship. As I have said in another thread:

There seem to be parallels between the finite nature of our lifespans and the finite nature of the resources on planet earth. In both cases we know they're going to run out, but in both cases we pretend as though they won't.


Indeed, there is no contingency plan for when oil finally runs out.

So what happens when oil does run out? Well in the long run there's not gonna be enough food to go around for 6 - 9 billion human beings, economies across the world will collapse, there will be rioting, starvation, and deprivation. Of course it begins more gradually, food prices going up, a few global recessions and spiking oil prices as supply starts to outstrip demand, but eventually the big one will come.

Funnily enough, all those nations which are primarily agrarian will be the one's who will weather the storm best. Those with a knowledge of organic farming and gardening, carpentry and such likes will reap the obvious benefits of independence.

Now I am not putting forth a very strong argument, it might seem, this is mostly because I don't really have the patience to thresh out a well cited piece right now, I'd just like to get the ball rolling.

metta
Jack



Hi, Jack, very good, and it's not really new...

Do a little Green Peace my friend...like me...

Greetings

Annabel
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Kim OHara » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:38 am

Annabel wrote:Hi, Jack, very good, and it's not really new...

Do a little Green Peace my friend...like me...
Greetings

Annabel

Hi, Anna! :smile:

Here's another good link, a Buddhist approach to caring for the environment. http://www.ecobuddhism.org/index.php

:anjali:
KIm
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Annapurna » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:52 am

Hey...cool! :toast:
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Peak Oil

Postby poto » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:35 pm

BlackBird wrote:
poto wrote:Stuff


Again, you're missing one of the real issues and that is that any figures that state that there's 50 to 100 years left of 'unconventional' oil, is a very well-done figure (that is to say it has been cooked thoroughly)

There isn't 50 years of 'unconventional' oil, let a lone 100. But there's a very good reason that just about everyone with a stake in oil would like you to believe otherwise.

Please visit the website, it's not propaganda nor is it a conspiracy theory, it's cold solid evidence from a litany of reputable sources - Read it through, then draw your conclusions.


Believe what you will.

I've read lifeaftertheoilcrash.net before. I think many things are misrepresented there. It's doomerism.

We are not going to revert to some neo-agrarian society. Have you ever farmed? I have. My grandparents were farmers, and I spent some of my summers as a teenager working their farm as slave labor. It's hard back-breaking work. This hobbit-in-the-shire post-oil doomer eco-fantasy is so far removed from the reality of the world it's not funny.

I have the skills to grow my own food, raise animals for food and profit, milk cows, etc. I can build buildings and repair equipment. I can survive without oil no problems, but I damn sure don't want to live like that. If I did I've have moved back to the family farm when my grandparents were still alive.

I'm confident that we have enough unconventional reserves to last a good long while.

Image
source: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

And no, it's not just propaganda from the oil companies, lol. There are vast fields of oil shale and sands that have barely been touched. After that runs out a transition to bio-fuels and other power sources will be in order. Sorry, the world is not going to end when we run out of oil.

Have I mentioned that it's possible to convert coal to a liquid fuel too? Yeah, we have hundreds of years worth of coal too.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C. S. Lewis
User avatar
poto
 
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 am

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Annapurna » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:06 pm

Poto, exploiting oil sand destroys nature I recently read

And whilst you could return to a horse or oxes pulling a plough, so many others couldn't ...
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Peak Oil

Postby Annapurna » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:14 pm

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=we ... pWAE9TK-qg

Buried below the Boreal Forest of northern Alberta is a source of oil known as the tar sands. Deposits of tar sands are spread out over 138 000 km2 of land (an area the size of Florida) and including 4.3 million hectares of the Boreal Forest.

Until recently, it was too expensive and complicated to extract the tar sands to produce oil, but over the past few years increases in oil prices and technological changes have made it possible, and profitable.

Companies are now producing over a million barrels of oil per day from the tar sands, and this number is constantly increasing.

But the explosive growth of these projects has huge environmental costs, damaging land, air, water, forests, and the climate. Greenpeace is calling on oil companies and the government to stop the tar sands, for the sake of people and the planet.
http://www.schmuckzauberei.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Annapurna
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany

Next

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], waterchan and 6 guests