| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
KilboFraggins
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
157 Posts |
 Posted - 30 June 2007 : 09:29:14 AM
|
So, having come back and viewed your trailer again, spurred me on to do some reading around on the subject of peak oil. I didn't realise how many peak oil related websites there are out there on the internet.
But, I notice there's a huge spread of opinion on Peak Oil, ranging from the doom 'n' gloom crowd who are saying the oil extraction tipping point occurred globally back around 2000, and the head in the sand crowd who believe we've got hundreds of years worth yet to be extracted, and the only thing that keeps it in the ground is the current still relatively cheap price of oil. ie: "absoluetely nothing to worry about folks"
So, where in this huge spread of opinion are you?
|
|
|
Alex Scarrow
Ape
993 Posts |
Posted - 30 June 2007 : 09:59:03 AM
|
You're right Kilbo, there's no accepted concensus and I suppose the sensible thing is to pick somewhere between the two extremes, say...somewhere in the middle. The problem with that is that the 'nothing to worry about' crowd distort the spectrum of views by claiming either that we have hundreds, maybe thousands of years of fossil fuel left, OR, they'll claim that oil actually comes from some deep-crust methane reaction, which in effect means an infinite supply. So picking a halfway view between doom-n-gloom Peak Oilers and Peak oil deny-ers would mean taking a view that, gosh...we got say just a hundred years of easy oil in the ground.
If you put a gun to my head and demanded a best guess from all that I've read, I'd probably opt to line up alongside a fair number of geologists posting out there that the downslope of Hubbert's peak (a very famous oil reserve prediction chart) begins roundabout 2010.
And as for the argument about there being a lot of it in the ground, something often trotted out by Peak Oil cynics...yes, there's actually loads of it up in Alaska in the sands. But this stuff needs to be sort of 'baked out'. And this is where another factor comes into play - the cost/effort of extraction.
Apart from the economic factor that goes into calculating whether oil is economic to extract (ie: the market rate per barrel) there's a simple scientific calculation known as the EROEI factor (Energy Returned On Energy Invested)...which basically is the ratio of oil consumed to oil extracted. Back when oil was literally a hand scoop of soil away from the surface in Texas, it took one barrel of oil to extract a hundred barrels. In Saudi Arabia, where their oil is pretty much the easiest in the world to extract and refine, the ratio is 10:1, elswhere that ratio is much lower. Averaged out, the global EROEI stands at about 3:1. When the Saudi reserves finally dry up, and that equation drops to 1:1 , then it really doesn't matter how mouch a barrel of oil goes for, if it costs a barrel to get a barrel there's no economic argument to extract it.
And then, putting aside the hotly debated issues in Peak Oil as to how much is in the ground, how much it costs to get it out, and whether market forces will swoop in to save the day, there's another side to this debate which is this....for some bizarre reason, Nature/God/Fate/Whatever decided to place all these incredibly valuable reserves amidst some of the most unstable, irresponsible, nations on the planet. The sooner we can sever ourselves from Oil addiction and having to kow-tow to the middle-east (and to some extent Russia), the better.
Phew...I could go on all day :-)
|
Edited by - Alex Scarrow on 30 June 2007 11:12:33 AM |
 |
|
|
Ankhsy
Homosapien
United Kingdom
7861 Posts |
Posted - 30 June 2007 : 10:31:52 AM
|
I got to the bottom of that...and actually understood it!
"We are Starfleet Officers, weird is part of the job."
|
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 01 July 2007 : 10:31:32 AM
|
The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.
In a similar sense, an oil-based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10-15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
The effects of even a small drop in production can be devastating. For instance, during the 1970s oil shocks, shortfalls in production as small as 5% caused the price of oil to nearly quadruple. The same thing happened in California a few years ago with natural gas: a production drop of less than 5% caused prices to skyrocket by 400%.
Fortunately, those price shocks were only temporary.
The coming oil shocks won't be so short-lived. They represent the onset of a new, permanent condition. Once the decline gets under way, production will drop (conservatively) by 3% per year, every year. War, terrorism, weather and other "above ground" geopolitical factors will likely push the effective decline rate past 10%, thus cutting the total supply by 50% in 7 years. (Source)
That estimate comes from numerous sources, not the least of which is Vice President Dick Cheney himself. In a 1999 speech he gave while still CEO of Halliburton, Cheney stated:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent
annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead,
along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline
in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we
will need on the order of anadditional 50 million barrels a
day.
Cheney's assesement is supported by the estimates of numerous non-political, retired, and now disinterested scientists, many of whom believe global oil production will peak and go into terminal decline within the next five years.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 01 July 2007 : 7:56:07 PM
|
I was surfing around today and found this...something i never knew about and very interesting...makes alexs book all the more scary!! but also makes you thin more about the war...sorry peace process in iraq!!
Thirty years later oil is still a big gun
Thirty years ago, on October 17, in an attempt to influence U.S. Middle East policy, the OPEC cartel, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, decided to cut oil supply to the U.S. Within weeks petroleum prices shot up by more than 300% and by the end of 1973 a gasoline shortage was felt throughout the country. The embargo was an assault on America's way of life, specifically its car-loving culture. Americans were forced to curtail their driving and electricity consumption habits, often at great inconvenience. Suburban moms mastered the art of carpooling, the only alternative to standing for hours in lengthening queues in service stations only to meet the sign "sorry, no gas." Christmas of 1973 was dim. For first time the lights on the national Christmas tree were not switched on. By early 1974 the U.S. was hit by the worst slump since the Great Depression.
By the time the embargo was lifted, in March 1974, the global economy was devastated. In the U.S., unemployment doubled due to the loss of 500,000 jobs, and GNP declined 6%. Europe and Japan suffered a similar fate. The impact on the developing world, especially the poor, newly created countries in Asia and Africa, was even worse. Countries completely dependent on energy imports suddenly found themselves under heavy debt from which many of them have not been able to recover to this day.
U.S. prestige also took a toll. In the midst of the Cold War, America's soft economic underbelly became apparent to all. Without oil, it was a paper tiger. Then U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was the first to realize that when he received a telegram from Exxon Corporation announcing a cut off of all oil deliveries to the Sixth Fleet and U.S. forces in Europe. At the peak of the drama, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger indicated the U.S. was prepared to send military forces to the Persian Gulf to take over whatever country was needed to ensure oil supply.
Thirty years later, with U.S. relations with the Muslim world at an all time low and at a time when our dependence on Middle E ast oil is on the rise, how likely it is that OPEC members ever use the oil weapon again?
Conventional wisdom says that even though some OPEC countries have an astounding record of acting against their own self-interest, it is unlikely that they would dare tamper with oil prices any time soon. The reason being that those countries that initiated the embargo ended up being its prime casualties. The petrodollar windfall allowed countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran to finance ambitious building projects, shopping sprees of military articles and the lavish lifestyle of their leaders. This brought to their decline. OPEC countries based their economies on oil products, failing to use their wealth to diversify their economies, build a strong industrial base, and improve the standard of living of their populations. In Iran, the infusion of petrodollars brought the Shah to indulge in a fantasy of imperial grandeur and lose touch with his people until he was overthrown by the mullahs. In Iraq, oil money allowed Saddam Hussein to build the world's fifth largest military which he kept hurling against his neighbors every few years. In Saudi Arabia the oil boom fueled corruption, productivity loss and social discontent. The kingdom per capita GDP dropped in just two decades from $28,000 twenty years ago to below $7,000 today.
To make things worse for OPEC countries, the oil crisis led the international community to cultivate competitive sources of supply such as the North Sea, Alaska, Mexico and more recently Russia, the Caspian and West Africa, in an attempt to reduce dependency on the Middle East. Additionally, the oil shock increased public awareness to the benefits of conservation. The conservationist effort became a national priority during the presidency of Jimmy Carter who, in February 1977, sitting beside a gleaming fireplace and wearing a cardigan sweater, delivered a speech on national television, saying that reducing U.S. dependency on foreign oil, was the "moral equivalent of war." It worked. In the next ten years after 1973, conservation proved to be America's fastest growing energy sector. Fuel efficiency of the average American car nearly doubled. Electricity generation from oil dropped from 17% of the nation's total power output to 2% today. The share of homes using oil for heating went down from 31% to 10%. The oil shock also launched a wave of technological innovation in the field of alternative energy and gasoline substitutes. Energy saving patents were registered by the thousands, and several government bureaucracies to enforce and encourage conservation were established. As a result of all these measures between 1979 and 1985 oil consumption in the U.S. decreased by 15%, oil imports fell by 42% and imports from the Persian Gulf by 87%. Most importantly, OPEC's market share dropped from 70% in 1973 to 40% today.
Despite OPEC's grand setback, the widely held assumption that the oil weapon has passed from the world is misplaced. In fact, never since 1973 have there been so many cases of Muslim leaders threatening to use the oil saber, or at least rattle it when tension with the U.S. has deepened, as in the past year. Last October, member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference entertained the idea of an oil embargo to stop the U.S. from attacking Iraq. Mahathir Mohamad, the Malaysian prime minister, said: "Oil is the only thing Muslim nations have which is needed by the rest of the world. If they can cut back on supply, people will not be oppressive on them. [..] It can be used as a weapon to protect the interest of Muslims." Earlier, in April 2002, Saddam Hussein declared an oil embargo for thirty days in response to Israeli military operations in the West Bank. Libya immediately announced that it would follow suit if other Muslim oil-producers imposed an oil embargo. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stepped up to the plate reminding his OPEC colleagues that if the west did not receive oil, "their factories would grind to a halt. This will shake the world!" A day later, similar sounds came from Saudi Arabia, holder of a quarter of the world's oil reserves. According to the New York Times, on the eve of President Bush's summit with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, unnamed members of the Saudi royal family discussed reusing the oil weapon. The Saudis denied the report. Palestinian leaders have also urged their Arab brothers to show more muscle and use the power endowed to them by Mother Nature. Farouq Al-Qaddoumi, head of the PLO political bureau and secretary general of Fatah's Central Committee urged the Arabs to use the oil weapon in order to pressure Europe to take a more forceful anti-Israel position. And so it goes.
True, all these threats proved idle and OPEC countries kept supply at a reasonable level. But the fact that key political leaders in the Muslim world still perceive oil as potential weapon against the west is unsettling and raises questions about the long-term future of our energy security. If another oil embargo is not in the cards today, this is only because of its current questionable utility for OPEC's members who need oil revenues to sustain their growing populations, not because they perceive the strangulation of America's economy to be immoral. This calculus could easily change as the world becomes more dependent on OPEC. And it rapidly does.
Since September 11 well-intentioned politicians have began pushing for reduction of U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by rushing to buy increasing quantities of oil from non-OPEC producers such as Russia, Mexico, Colombia, Angola and Kazakhstan. At first glance, this may seem to be a reasonable policy. But in the long run, nothing could compromise U.S. energy security more. Because reserves in non-OPEC countries are relatively small and not subjected to production quotas, they tend to deplete faster than OPEC's. The overall reserves-to-production ratio -- an indicator of how long proven reserves would last at current production rates -- in non-OPEC countries is about 15 years comparing to roughly 80 years in OPEC's.
With world oil production projected to increase by about 65% in the next 25 years, many of today's large producers, including the U.S., Mexico, Norway and Russia, will reach a point in which they are no longer relevant players in the oil market. At that point the percentage of world oil reserves concentrated in OPEC countries will reach 95%, and OPEC's share of total oil supply is projected to bounce back to a level higher than in 1973.
The idea of a world in which so much oil is concentrated in the hands of so few does not deprive sleep from many in Washington. It should. If relations between those who need oil and those who own it continue to worsen, as now seems to be the case, there would be enough reasons for OPEC countries to use their economic power against the west once they resume control over the oil market. After all, as Mahathir Mohamad said, "angry people cannot act rationally."
This leaves us two decades to achieve one of two things, preferably both: either dramatically improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world bringing it to the point that the use of the oil weapon becomes unthinkable. This would entail monumental tasks such as resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, democratization of the Arab world and suppression of radical Islam. Alternatively, the U.S. could lead the world in the no less challenging task of reducing global demand for oil by displacing it as a dominant source of transportation energy. This can be done through a shift into an economy based on fuels made from anything but petroleum.
Such energy transformation, equivalent to the shift from wood to coal in the 17th century or the shift from coal to oil three centuries later, is becoming increasingly feasible. Non-oil based transportation fuels such as methanol, ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen and others can be derived from abundant resources such as clean coal, natural gas, biomass, and municipal waste. Electricity produced from nuclear, wind, hydropower could move vehicles with similar performance and less pollution. Advanced automobile technology using flexible fuel engines, fuel cells, hybrid engines and powerful batteries can accommodate the new fuels with relatively easy market diffusion.
Monumental task? Perhaps, but a worthy one considering the alternative of facing OPEC's fully loaded weapon sometime in the future. Or as one Chinese proverb said: If we don't change course, we'll end up where we're headed.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 02 July 2007 : 3:31:55 PM
|
I thought it might be interesting to list some of the thingsmade from oil.
Ink Dishwashing liquids Paint brushes Telephones
Toys Unbreakable dishes Insecticides Antiseptics
Dolls Car sound insulation Fishing lures Deodorant
Tires Motorcycle helmets Linoleum Sweaters
Tents Refrigerator linings Paint rollers Floor wax
Shoes Electrician's tape Plastic wood Model cars
Glue Roller-skate wheels Trash bags Soap dishes
Skis Permanent press clothes Hand lotion Clothesline
Dyes Soft contact lenses Shampoo Panty hose
Cameras Food preservatives Fishing rods Oil filters
Combs Transparent tape Anesthetics Upholstery
Dice Disposable diapers TV cabinets Cassettes
Mops Sports car bodies Salad bowls House paint
Purses Electric blankets Awnings Ammonia
Dresses Car battery cases Safety glass Hair curlers
Pajamas Synthetic rubber VCR tapes Eyeglasses
Pillows Vitamin capsules Movie film Ice chests
Candles Rubbing alcohol Loudspeakers Ice buckets
Boats Ice cube trays Credit cards Fertilizers
Crayons Insect repellent Water pipes Toilet seats
Caulking Roofing shingles Fishing boots Life jackets
Balloons Shower curtains Garden hose Golf balls
Curtains Plywood adhesive Umbrellas Detergents
Milk jugs Beach umbrellas Rubber cement Sun glasses
Putty Faucet washers Cold cream Bandages
Tool racks Antihistamines Hair coloring Nail polish
Slacks Drinking cups Guitar strings False teeth
Yarn Petroleum jelly Toothpaste Golf bags
Roofing Tennis rackets Toothbrushes Perfume
Luggage Wire insulation Folding doors Shoe polish
Fan belts Ballpoint pens Shower doors Cortisone
Carpeting Artificial turf Heart valves LP records
Lipstick Artificial limbs Hearing aids Vaporizers
Aspirin Shaving cream Wading pools Parachutes
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
AndyCanty
Homosapien
United Kingdom
6782 Posts |
Posted - 02 July 2007 : 3:54:06 PM
|
If you think about almost everything is touched by oil in one form or another ,it's either made from it, used to actually make it or used to transport it.
_____________________________________
If all the worlds a stage?
Where's my script???
http://andycanty.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 1:01:00 PM
|
http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticle.php?contentID=2617
ok go read this...now im not a member so dont point fingers some one googled this and this site was returned, would be interested in your impression of their stance
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
scarrow
Forum Admin
588 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 2:41:29 PM
|
It's a pretty fairly written article. The sad thing is the message is lost simply because of the messenger. Because it's on the BNP site it instantly loses all credibility.
|
|
|
|
AndyCanty
Homosapien
United Kingdom
6782 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 2:53:28 PM
|
Yeah my thoughts too, it does belabor the point that the BNP raised it 5 yrs ago.
oh well, i guess some will say we should have at least listened...
_____________________________________
If all the worlds a stage?
Where's my script???
http://andycanty.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 2:53:30 PM
|
thats what i thought. The comments about national sustainability rather than international come accross as typical BNP language for racism etc.. but in fact its not wrong, we as a country could not support our population food wise and that needs to change, we need to be able to produce the relevant levels of food to provide for the whole nation. if we dont plan for that now, its not going to be something we can change over night....you have no idea how dirty i feel agreeing with anything on that site.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
|
AndyCanty
Homosapien
United Kingdom
6782 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 3:37:19 PM
|
I think there's a large problem with the plan to feed the nation from internal trade, there just isnt enough land to plan on anymore, it's been developed so much that, what ever happens much of the country will starve...IMO
_____________________________________
If all the worlds a stage?
Where's my script???
http://andycanty.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
KilboFraggins
Invertebrate
United Kingdom
157 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 3:57:46 PM
|
"...Because it's on the BNP site it instantly loses all credibility."
Are you saying the article is incorrect? |
|
|
|
scarrow
Forum Admin
588 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 4:03:18 PM
|
No, I'm saying that I can't afford to be seen agreeing with anything - no matter what is actually said - if it's on the BNP site.
Seriously....career over.
So I have to add the caveat '...Because it's on the BNP site it instantly loses all credibility...' |
|
|
|
Parmenion
Homosapien
United Kingdom
14676 Posts |
Posted - 24 July 2007 : 5:19:54 PM
|
quote:
I think there's a large problem with the plan to feed the nation from internal trade, there just isnt enough land to plan on anymore, it's been developed so much that, what ever happens much of the country will starve...IMO
im not saying we can do it completly but we need to at least make an effort, we use a hell of a lot of our arable land for things like oil seed repe (sp) becasue its cheap to grow, you can plant multiple crops per year and its reasonably high value...as lubricant etc.. that land could grow crops, and reduce our dependancy on other countries, look at france, i know a much larger country but they protect and support their farmers....not the UK though.
Centurion Parmenion
LASCIATE OGNE SPERANZA, VOI CH'INTRATE
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Peak Oil
