Reply With Quote
You know, I used to always think "Mad Max" series of movies were after a war or something. Maybe it was based on too low of a supply of oil to meet demands?
A little article I run across. The sky is falling and there
is nothing we can do. Why? Because all the alternatives
are bad, bad, bad.
I have to wonder if some people just wake up every morning
looking for something else to be worried about.
===================================
Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_te...cle2656034.ece
World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists
Scientists challenge major review of global reserves and warn that supplies will start to run out in four years' time
By Daniel Howden
Published: 14 June 2007
Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.
BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry.
However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.
According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves.
Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."
Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, S , Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking."
In recent years the once-considerable gap between demand and supply has narrowed. Last year that gap all but disappeared. The consequences of a shortfall would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even the smallest amount, the price of oil could soar above $100 a barrel. A global recession would follow.
Jeremy Legget, like Dr Campbell, is a geologist-turned conservationist whose book Half Gone: Oil, Gas, Hot Air and the Global Energy Crisis brought " peak oil" theory to a wider audience. He compares industry and government reluctance to face up to the impending end of oil, to climate change denial.
"It reminds me of the way no one would listen for years to scientists warning about global warming," he says. "We were predicting things pretty much exactly as they have played out. Then as now we were wondering what it would take to get people to listen."
In 1999, Britain's oil reserves in the North Sea peaked, but for two years after this became apparent, Mr Leggert claims, it was heresy for anyone in official circles to say so. "Not meeting demand is not an option. In fact, it is an act of treason," he says.
One thing most oil analysts agree on is that depletion of oil fields follows a predictable bell curve. This has not changed since the S geologist M King Hubbert made a mathematical model in 1956 to predict what would happen to US petroleum production. The Hubbert Curveshows that at the beginning production from any oil field rises sharply, then reaches a plateau before falling into a terminal decline. His prediction that US production would peak in 1969 was ridiculed by those who claimed it could increase indefinitely. In the event it peaked in 1970 and has been in decline ever since.
In the 1970s Chris Skrebowski was a long-term planner for BP. Today he edits the Petroleum Review and is one of a growing number of industry insiders converting to peak theory. "I was extremely sceptical to start with," he now admits. "We have enough capacity coming online for the next two-and-a-half years. After that the situation deteriorates."
What no one, not even BP, disagrees with is that demand is surging. The rapid growth of China and India matched with the developed world's dependence on oil, mean that a lot more oil will have to come from somewhere. BP's review shows that world demand for oil has grown faster in the past five years than in the second half of the 1990s. Today we consume an average of 85 million barrels daily. According to the most conservative estimates from the International Energy Agency that figure will rise to 113 million barrels by 2030.
Two-thirds of the world's oil reserves lie in the Middle East and increasing demand will have to be met with massive increases in supply from this region.
BP's Statistical Review is the most widely used estimate of world oil reserves but as Dr Campbell points out it is only a summary of highly political estimates supplied by governments and oil companies.
As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game."
A survey of the four countries with the biggest reported reserves - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Kuwait - reveals major concerns. In Kuwait last year, a journalist found do ents suggesting the country's real reserves were half of what was reported. Iran this year became the first major oil producer to introduce oil rationing - an indication of the administration's view on which way oil reserves are going.
Sadad al-Huseini knows more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than perhaps anyone else. He retired as chief executive of the kingdom's oil corporation two years ago, and his view on how much Saudi production can be increased is sobering. "The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 84.5 million in 2004. You're leaping by two to three million [barrels a day]" each year, he told The New York Times. "That's like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years. It can't be done indefinitely."
The importance of black gold
* A reduction of as little as 10 to 15 per cent could cripple oil-dependent industrial economies. In the 1970s, a reduction of just 5 per cent caused a price increase of more than 400 per cent.
* Most farming equipment is either built in oil-powered plants or uses diesel as fuel. Nearly all pesticides and many fertilisers are made from oil.
* Most plastics, used in everything from computers and mobile phones to pipelines, clothing and carpets, are made from oil-based substances.
* Manufacturing requires huge amounts of fossil fuels. The construction of a single car in the US requires, on average, at least 20 barrels of oil.
* Most renewable energy equipment requires large amounts of oil to produce.
* Metal production - particularly aluminium - cosmetics, hair dye, ink and many common painkillers all rely on oil.
Alternative sources of power
Coal
There are still an estimated 909 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide, enough to last at least 155 years. But coal is a fossil fuel and a dirty energy source that will only add to global warming.
Natural gas
The natural gas fields in Siberia, Alaska and the Middle East should last 20 years longer than the world's oil reserves but, although cleaner than oil, natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits pollutants. It is also expensive to extract and transport as it has to be liquefied.
Hydrogen fuel cells
Hydrogen fuel cells would provide us with a permanent, renewable, clean energy source as they combine hydrogen and oxygen chemically to produce electricity, water and heat. The difficulty, however, is that there isn't enough hydrogen to go round and the few clean ways of producing it are expensive.
Biofuels
Ethanol from corn and maize has become a popular alternative to oil. However, studies suggest ethanol production has a negative effect on energy investment and the environment because of the space required to grow what we need.
Renewable energy
Oil-dependent nations are turning to renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric, solar and wind power to provide an alternative to oil but the likelihood of renewable sources providing enough energy is slim.
Nuclear
Fears of the world's uranium supply running out have been allayed by improved reactors and the possibility of using thorium as a nuclear fuel. But an increase in the number of reactors across the globe would increase the chance of a disaster and the risk of dangerous substances getting into the hands of terrorists.
You know, I used to always think "Mad Max" series of movies were after a war or something. Maybe it was based on too low of a supply of oil to meet demands?
Sometime I think that the liberals want just exactly that kind of
world. A mad max world. So long as they rule.
That is what I see for a future if we don't stop them.
Yeah, liberals are always and forever poo-pooing alternative energy solutions.
That part of the discussion has nothing to do with alternate energy. It has to do with liberals wanting to redistribute wealth and controls things.Yeah, liberals are always and forever poo-pooing alternative energy solutions.
You Liberals only have a monopoly of asking for alternate energy that requires subsidies and government programs. We conservatives embrace alternate energy. We just know where and when it is and is not practical.
By the way, what liberal government officials truly embrace alternate energy? I am not aware of any of them using it. However, president Bush uses alternate energy at his personal residence and had solar cells installed on the white house!
Please... Names...
Who actually uses alternate energy?
You are correct, they "don't" poo-poo alternative energyYeah, liberals are always and forever poo-pooing alternative energy solutions.
solutions. They just DEMAND that everyone follow their
solutions, no discussion allowed or wanted.
And continue to want to be the elite in all things. You
know like they are to the ones that should not be denied their
view by someone building wind turbines, we need more
energy but no one should build nuclear power plants,
drill more oil wells in the US or Alaska or build new
oil refineries, on and on and on.......so take you
poo-poo and stuff it back where it belongs.
"liberals wanting to redistribute wealth and controls things."
the conservatives have already redistributed wealth to be concentrated in the top 5% and control that wealth to exclusion of the bottome 95%.
eg, as if any serious observer needed more evidence that the Repugs exclusive priority in getting elelcted is to enrich and protect the super-rich and corps:
Bush Shafts Enron Victims
By Robert L. Borosage
TomPaine.com
Thursday 14 June 2007
Wall Street's investment banks just got another one step closer to making defrauding investors an accepted line of business. And Enron's employees who lost their pensions and the small investors who got fleeced in the Enron frauds just got shafted again - this time at the urging of President George W. Bush.
Wall Street's most powerful investment banks and their friends in high places lobbied the U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to reject the recommendation of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Justice Department support defrauded investors in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
The case before the Supreme Court is called Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, but the Court decision will directly impact the millions of victims of Enron's collapse - and say much about the honesty of U.S. markets.
Briefs in support of the defrauded investors were filed by dozens of state attorneys general, by the Council of Ins utional Investors and some of the nation's largest pension funds whose investments are at risk if Wall Street banks can concoct fraudulent schemes with impunity. Yet, in an unprecedented failure to meet his responsibilities to the public, Solicitor General Clement, who represents the United States before the Court, decided to punt.
Clement is not exactly a neutral party. He's a star of the right-wing bar. He clerked for Laurence Silberman and Antonin Scalia, among the most partisan and reactionary judges of our time. He served as an aide to Sen. John Ashcroft. He is an activist in the right-wing Federalist Society that seeks a return to 19th century jurisprudence.
And this spear carrier for the right got his marching orders from the top. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson called directly and arranged for President Bush to weigh in personally.
The intervention of the treasury secretary and the president is hardly business as usual - particularly since neither Paulson nor President Bush are neutral observers either. Paulson is the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, a named defendant on the Enron case. And Enron and CEO "Kenny Boy" Lay were George Bush's leading supporters, contributing cash, the corporate plane and fundraising energy to Bush's rise.
The president, according to his chief economic advisor, Al Hubbard, ''believes that it's important to make certain that we reduce the unnecessary lawsuits because that's a very big burden to the economy, which adversely impacts investors."
( as if Enron's investors weren't "burdened" by the Enron fraud )
But it is investors who have brought the Enron lawsuit, and it is the defrauded investors who the solicitor general and Bush just shafted. The poster child for the unchecked greed of the 1990s, Enron's executives, accountants and Wall Street banks created the ultimate Ponzi scheme. When it came unglued, the public lost billions, lives were ruined and pensions were lost. For five long years, the victims of the Enron fraud have pressed ahead, seeking justice against the banks who orchestrated the fraud. The trial was finally set to begin when two conservative Fifth Circuit appellate judges swooped in and hijacked the case. They bought the banks' tortured logic that although unquestionably in cahoots with Enron, they could not be held liable.
Why? Because Merrill Lynch and the other defendant banks stayed behind the curtain - merely directing the crime, participating in the crime, and collecting their share of the loot - but never themselves actually communicated directly to the market. The fraudulent schemes, of course, were public and misled investors (including Merrill Lynch's own investment advisors who promoted Enron's stock).
The Enron judges acknowledged "our ruling on legal merit may not coincide …with notions of justice and fair-play." (To say nothing of common sense or a sensible concern for the reputation of U.S. markets.) But forced to choose between the banks that committed the fraud and the investors who got screwed, the judges, the treasury secretary and the president chose the thieves over the victims.
No matter the banks enthusiastically worked hand in glove with Enron executives.
No matter that they created "structured transactions" with the sole purpose of allowing Enron to hide enormous losses and claim fic ious profits - while actually never making a dime.
No matter that the Enron trial judge, a conservative Bush I appointment, found "a long shadow over Merrill Lynch's ongoing participation . . . in the unified scheme to defraud."
No matter that Merrill Lynch was fined millions of dollars by the SEC for its part in this sordid affair. No matter that several Merrill executives were reduced to taking the Fifth Amendment before Congress.
And no matter that countless ordinary people, those that rely on their bank and the market to be honest, robust and fair, lost billions.
There would be no day of reckoning. Fraud is just business as usual for Wall Street banks.
The Supreme Court justices will now decide, in the words of the old protest song, "whose side are you on," Main Street or Wall Street? How this drama turns out will say a lot about our justice system - and a lot about our economy. If Wall Street banks have no liability for fraudulent schemes they concoct, the scandals of the last decade will look like choir boy pranks compared to what is to come.
----------
Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. This article first appeared in The Huffington Post.
==========
With dubya having packed the SC with radical conservatives, the SC will surely vote 5-4 to favor corrupt ins utions to the detriment of individuals.
Last edited by boutons_; 06-15-2007 at 01:35 PM.
No dummie, it is called letting someone keep what they
earned. No have government "steal" money and give it
to others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
