What's your opinion on Peak Oil?

I think it's real, and that in 5-10 years we'll start seeing serious effects. (The current $2 a gallon gas price is literally nothing compared to whats coming, imho.)

I think any nation not giving top priority to developing alternative energy sources is foolish. And not just in protecting it's ability to meet it's energy needs. I think there is a vast opportunity to make money in the production of oil replacing technologies. Nations will either need to create these technologies, buy them from other nations, or fall into powerless 3rd or 4th world nation status.

...the effects of in my lifetime, I'm 36.

This article is a nice summation of the issue.

I also believe that we'll need to radically alter our economic system, there will be no choice.

. . . 5 to 20 yrs. earlier than predicted, which is consistent with recent restating of oil reserves. In Hubberts work, the time and magnitude of peak was determined from the estimated size of the field. If the size is less, the peak will be less, and occur sooner.

I think humans will adapt since the fall off in production will be gradual. I agree that the greatest impact will be on the economic system. When you have an essential commodity where supply can no longer increase to offset increasing prices due to demand, a market economy model will work no better than the Kali-fornia electricity market has under deregulation.

I do not think that peak oil will lead to an end of suburbia or the American lifestyle. We will just get from point A to B in much more efficient ways than living rooms on 4 wheels. For me, suburbia will be much more liveable.

Consider the following statement form the article:

"We need new technologies, especially for transportation, which accounts for two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption."

. . .

"A more practical approach would be the electrification of transport. Switching half the truck and personal auto miles to electrified transport would require an increase in electric generation capacity of only 10 percent. Electrified transport is clean, non-polluting and energy-efficient. "

That is a good article from the mainstream...but...it is becoming all too clear that peak oil is here or around the corner (year or two). But the real problem occurs when demand exceeds supply, peak or not. Then the bidding begins in earnest. Prices could easily top $100 a barrel. This will cause profound impacts on the world but particularly on the USA. The only way we can deal with essentially a new tax on our economy is to inflate it away. This happened in the 1970s partially in responce to the oil embargo.

Unfortunantly this time around we cannot inflate our way out of the crisis because we are so dependent on the world to re-invest their surplus dollars back into our economy. Inflation will kill that goose. So the only way to pay for much higher oil will be to reduce our ability to use it (demand destruction), by allowing much, much higher prices. That of course will effect the prices of everything from plastic to food. We dear friends will see the mother of all depressions. Bob

You will get few responces I fear as here as in the country in general 98% of the population can not/will not get their heads around this issue. Sence there is no solution to the delema Americans choose DENIAL. Bob

This guy's pessimistic, to say the least.

He's part right in that we would be massively screwed if oil production goes down while demand goes up. As it is, production isn't keeping up with demand right now.

On the other hand, we're a tenacious species, and we'll figure out something.

Financial collapse is probably the least of our worries. It could be argued that a good financial collapse is necessary every so often to cleanse the waters and get a new start on things.

Producing the basics, like food, clothes, and housing is a bit more problematic, though. Mass starvation doesn't sound like such a good idea, unless you're really into eugenics and population reduction.

...single issue with global consequences in the coming 20-30 yrs. Unless some real changes are made, I expect a complete economic collapse, with an attendent social collapse, in the U.S. and elsewhere, beginning in about ten years. It's time to start planning, IMO.

Reagan shortly after dismantled all of the alternative energy programs, using obsolescence as an excuse.

He was braindead and narrowminded and he is even more-so now.

NT!

Just imagine what happens when oil is no longer seen as cheap and available.

Our little law of "supply vs demand".

Oh, the moment the news breaks out the cost per barrel could easily TRIPLE.

$100 oil, this year or next.

Oy, CRUNCH!

Anybody who doesn't agree with the US is branded as rebel, terrorist, malcontent, et cetera, by the media and by the politicians. It's more one-sided flummery that proves we'll never communicate with each other unless both sides' tools for communicating is violence and destruction. And while we need to protect the oil plants and all, * isn't even beginning to address the problem. Which is unfortunate if not ironic, * supports the oil robber barons and encourages greater use of the stuff (which is the same thing as begging God to kill us all painfully.)

If the rebels destroy or damage a processing plant, prices could shoot up right away. This would be catastrophic.

* gave us this multi-faceted mess. How do we get out of it and adjust society in time? (* will do nothing, that much is damn obvious. Kerry MUST have to take the problem by the reins no matter what (tax the rich, they've gotten plenty and far more already and it's about time they contribute to the solution that threatens us all because the rest of us cannot afford to!) or else the shootin' match is over. And while, after peak, we will still have oil, that doesn't mean prices will stay at their cozy $50/barrel levels... the supply/demand model we use will make even a 1% monthly drop catastrophic within as many months.

move to somewhere that allows you to walk or cycle to meet your basic needs, or to a farm where you can grow your own food.

The American sprawl suburb will become even more unlivable than it is now.

Iraq and the Problem of Peak Oil
by F. William Engdahl

Today, much of the world is convinced the Bush Administration did not wage war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein because of threat from weapons of mass destruction, nor from terror dangers. Still a puzzle, however, is why Washington would risk so much in terms of relations with its allies and the entire world, to occupy Iraq. There is compelling evidence that oil and geopolitics lie at the heart of the still-hidden reasons for the military action in Iraq.

It is increasingly clear that the US occupation of Iraq is about control of global oil resources. Control, however, in a situation where world oil supplies are far more limited than most of the world has been led to believe. If the following is accurate, the Iraq war is but the first in a major battle over global energy resources, a battle which will be more intense than any oil war to date. The stakes are highest. It is about fixing who will get how much oil for their economy at what price and who not. Never has such a choke-hold on the world economy been in the hands of one power. After occupation of Iraq it appears it is.

<snip>

According to the estimates of Colin Campbell and K. Aleklett of Uppsala University, five countries hold the overwhelming bulk of the world's remaining oil and could potentially make up the difference as other areas pass their peak. 'The five major producers of the Middle East, namely Abu Dhabi, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (including the Neutral Zone), with about half the world's remaining oil, are treated as swing producers making up the difference between world demand and what other countries can produce...'2.

These five countries - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE - through circumstances of geology, contain the oil and gas reserves vital to the future economic growth of the world. In an article in the January 7, 2002 issue of Oil and Gas Journal by A. S. Bakhtiari of the National Iranian Oil Company, noted, 'The Middle East (is) simultaneously the most geostrategic area on the globe and the ultimate energy prize: Two-thirds of global crude oil reserves are concentrated in five countries bordering the Persian Gulf.'3

In a paper published in November 2001, eminent Princeton geologist, Kenneth Deffeyes wrote, 'The biggest single question is the year when world oil production reaches a Hubbert peak and then declines forever. Both the graphical and the computer fits identify 2004 as the probable year. The largest single uncertainty is the enormous reserves of Saudi Arabia.'4

Much more: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG408A.html

TYY

This raises more questions. How by controlling Iraq's oil fields can the USA avoid dealing with 'peak oil'? Oil is a commodity traded on the world economic exchanges. Prices are set by contracts that go to the highest bidder. Would the bush cartel arrange to ship the 2-4 million barrels of Iraq oil exclusively to the USA and at below market prices? I doubt it. Once oil demand exceeds supply only demand destruction can bring down prices. Will we go to war with China, Japan, India in order to destroy their economies and bring down demand? Or maybe Europe? Essentially going to war was due to the confluence of several factors with Israel in the forefront. For the US it was the worst decision possible. It is like pounding sand, bloody sand indeed. Bob

Dick Cheney: “From the standpoint of the oil industry obviously - and I'll talk a little later on about gas - for over a hundred years we as an industry have had to deal with the pesky problem that once you find oil and pump it out of the ground you've got to turn around and find more or go out of business. Producing oil is obviously a self-depleting activity. Every year you've got to find and develop reserves equal to your output just to stand still, just to stay even. This is as true for companies as well in the broader economic sense it is for the world. A new merged company like Exxon-Mobil will have to secure over a billion and a half barrels of new oil equivalent reserves every year just to replace existing production. It's like making one hundred per cent interest; discovering another major field of some five hundred million barrels equivalent every four months or finding two Hibernias a year. For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day.So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow." (my emphasis /jc)

www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf (Adobe Acrobat required to view)

natural tendency to procrastination x hubris = american energy policy

I hope the people wake up when the disaster finally occurs.

Where isn't oil-based products used?

Food?

Nope. Food gets oil in the form of fertilizer, the science that goes into genetic manipulation as well so more of it can be grown, harvested quickly enough, transported to the store in big crates, forklifted to the shelves (or the freezers, which run on electricity generated from oil burning in some areas (!) )...

I needn't say more, though it's all too easy to do so.

Those in power are not pro-life despite their blitherings and the people are too busy raising Junior and Henrietta in order to look around to see the problems. For they think they are 'realists'. They are nothing more than fools.

I'll just say that we live in the Tampa Bay area, and when preparing for Charley I told my husband I was shopping for the days AFTER the storm, my husband said, Well, you should be an expert on that, with all your Peak Oil stuff. I believe.

It's not "who killed JFK".

It's not "little green men at Roswell".

It's "we're running out of oil".

I told my wife that the biggest government secret could turn out to be that they knew we were running out of oil all along. All the other stuff that we were wondering about were simply distractions to keep us from uncovering the real secret.

Unfortunately, it looks as if we will all have an "exciting" future, just like a Chinese curse.

Do a Google search on Crawford ranch - somebody's sure ready.

Petroleum engineers have a handle on that answer. I want to address the context. Again, I want to stress how we look at things. Since the potential number of users of oil is somewhere around six billion, I can't go on my soapbox and shout about overpopulation. But I can say that the growth of population is one big factor in oil use. Probably the biggest factor. But the other factor is how it is used. We may have a darned hard time halving our oil consumption through technology, but we'll have a very easy time doubling our consumption through increases in population.
The oil content of the earth is exactly what it is. Some specific locations hit their peaks in the late '70's. Some still have vast amounts of reserves.
What disturbs me the most is that the discussion is so short sighted. I don't think anyone is looking beyond 500 years. Or even 100. Talking about peak oil in the context of thirty years is not worth mentioning. These thoughts go through my mind as I watch things like the Tour de France, where bicyclists ride by structures that are 2000 years old. And that's not all that old. We simply must start thinking in longer terms.

PS I honestly believe that's why I have such a serious interest in population growth. We have control over it. There is no peak oil, or technology involved. Oops. I did it. I mentioned it.

The technology that created the 'green revolution' is based on fossil fuels. Plants that were hybridized to grow more seed and less roots and leaves cannot grow and produce without massive amounts of chemical fertilizer. So if we were a planet without fossil fuels our population would likely be less than 2 billion. As fossil fuels deplete many think that we will shrink the population back to something like 2 million. How it happens is the key. We could have massive disruptions including wars that do the trick. Or we could have way less children and let older folks pass on as they chose to. One way or the other the human population will need to return to balance with the planets resources. That or extinction. Bob

will your local beer distributor be able to deliver without a serious price increase? How bout your bread delivery, your milk man, the guy that delivers Twinkies to the vending machine? It's a downward spiral.

and likely intense war as well, but the eventual consequence will likely be a forceful switch to alternative energy, a temporary but huge economic collapse, and a great reduction in energy-inefficient practices, not the collapse of civilization and the deaths of the vast majority of humans.

Would people really just sit back and wait to die?

Many of them don't have a clue, so it's just possible they might. Or, worst case scenario, loot or riot or attack each other in anger.

Heck, for a 'Christian' nation, if tons of married people divorce because one of them loses their job, they sure as hell won't take it in stride when something even bigger than a job loss threatens their lives. (once again, money is the root of all evil. That's partly why we're in this godawful mess.)

one heck of a ride. Everyone should read this site and make up their own minds. I have already started a food and water storage in my basement. It is the logical thing to do. For any emergency that might come up.

oh , they didn't tell you ? .....they will when it gets very serious.
Now we're just "liberating" folks...(and establishing military bases)

it is revealed that invading Iraq was round one in our Petro-Jihad to secure the Merican way o' life?

And won't the cost of conquering and holding the Mideast oil far outweigh any benefits? Wouldn't just starting a crash program to reduce oil use and promote energy efficiency be more cost effective, not to say a hell of a lot easier?

We ask that you please fasten your safety belts, lock your trays and put your seats in the "upright" position.

I thought PNAC had already "revealed" this in their Sept.2000 white paper, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." I took their statement to prevent any challengers to American power as a commitment to control the oil.

And wouldn't this war be Round 2, or N?, considering the Persian Gulf war, the Iran-Iraq war, the various Israel-centric wars, etc.?

"And won't the cost of conquering and holding the Mideast oil far outweigh any benefits?"

It took decades to build our complete dependancy on the black juice.
when's the last time you saw any government produce the foresight to deal with such a huge future problem besides preparing for war.
.....and the big players aren't even in the game yet...stay tuned.

Arabia is in trouble. They may have already peaked. They may very well go into civil war after King Fahd dies they will be fighting for the Kingdom and it could 25% of the world's oil in jeopardy. Not only do we need to control the remaining oil BUT we need to bust OPEC. If they decide to switch to EU dollars it could be the end of our economy!


The world's demand is going up and the supply is going down. We have less than 10 years......LEARN HOW TO RIDE A BIKE!

in .pdf format.

Pretty well explains why PNAC plans to make a grab for the Middle-east.

Note that the Canadian tar sands are only 26 yr. supply at the current U.S. consumption rate of 18Mbpd.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/images/mp_download.5.2.pdf